Awah v. Mansfield Kaseman Health Clinic
| Docket Number | Civil Action 8:21-cv-00938-PX |
| Decision Date | 30 December 2021 |
| Parties | EDMUND AWAH, Plaintiff, v. MANSFIELD KASEMAN HEALTH CLINIC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This action relates to healthcare services that Plaintiff Edmund Awah (“Awah”) received from two different providers, Mansfield Kaseman Health Clinic (“Mansfield Kaseman” or the “clinic”) and Roosha Farnoosh, DMD (“Dr. Farnoosh”). As defendants to this lawsuit, Awah has named Mansfield Kaseman, three of Mansfield Kaseman's employees-Deanna Melara (“Melara”), Carmen Lezama (“Lezama”) and Leslie Boylan (“Boylan”)-and Dr. Farnoosh. Presently pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss, one jointly filed on behalf of Mansfield Kaseman and its employees (collectively, the “Clinic Defendants”) (ECF No. 16), and the other filed by Dr Farnoosh (ECF No. 25). Awah timely responded to the former but he has not responded to the latter. The Court finds no hearing necessary to resolve the motions. See D. Md Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, the Clinic Defendants' joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Dr. Farnoosh's motion is likewise GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Awah is a 68-year-old African American man living in Montgomery County, Maryland. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Awah was a patient of Mansfield Kaseman, a clinic that offers medical care to low-income residents of Montgomery County. Id. ¶¶ 21, 24. Melara is the clinic's patient referral coordinator, Lezama is one of the clinic's managers, and Boylan is a nurse practitioner at the clinic. Id. ¶¶ 17-19.
Awah separately received dental treatment from Dr. Farnoosh. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 20, 52-54. Dr. Farnoosh, a dentist licensed to practice in the state of Maryland, works for the “Department of Health and Human Services Dental Program.” Id. ¶ 20. Awah was referred to Dr. Farnoosh for dental services, though it is unclear by whom. Id. ¶¶ 52-53. According to Awah, each Defendant has violated his rights under state and federal law in myriad ways. The Complaint describes Awah's engagement with each of the Defendants as follows.
For the three years that he received medical care at Mansfield Kaseman, Awah sincerely believes he has endured all manner of disparate treatment on account of his race. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 28-30, 36, 38; ECF No. 18 at 3. As a black man, Awah stands out among the majority of clinic staff and patients who present as Latinx. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 6, 24, 28, 29. Awah maintains from the outset that his race presented significant barriers to the receipt of medical care on par with that of the Latinx patients, and he chronicles several instances of such alleged discrimination.
As a new patient, Awah had to submit paperwork verifying his residence, income, and assets so that the clinic could determine if he qualified for its services. ECF No. 1 ¶ 24. Although Awah completed the necessary paperwork, Defendant Melara “combatively confronted and harassed” him about his failure to do so. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. By contrast, Latinx patients never experienced similar harassment. Id. ¶ 28. Eventually, Lezama, the clinic's manager, became involved in the paperwork dispute. Id. ¶ 31. Lezama treated Awah similarly and, on one occasion, threatened to cancel Awah's appointment with a physician. Id. The Complaint further alleges that contrary to Latinx patients, Awah's appointments would take four times as long to complete. See Id. ¶ 36. Awah attributes these delays to racial animus against him and preferential treatment to members of the Latinx community.
Awah also perceives racially motivated denial of referrals for specialist care. Customarily, when the clinic cannot provide necessary specialized medical care, it will refer a patient to outside specialists. ECF No. 1 ¶ 38. But Defendants Melara and Lezama refused to refer Awah to many of the specialists that he wished to see.[1] Id. ¶¶ 38-39. By contrast, Latinx patients were always referred to specialists when necessary. Id. ¶ 39. As to a particular nephrology consult, Awah states he received a referral, but ultimately it was not for a nephrologist, but rather “another Latina woman.” Id. ¶ 43.
Relatedly, Awah accuses Melara and Lezama of sabotaging his attempt to obtain a medically necessary colonoscopy. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 44-47. Clinic patients scheduled for a colonoscopy needed first to attend an “awareness class” during which a Mansfield Kaseman nurse would explain “the expectations and outcomes of the procedure.” Id. ¶ 45. Awah, unlike Latinx patients scheduled for the same procedure, was never given the details of such a class. Id. Consequently, Awah was unable to attend the class and have the colonoscopy. Id. ¶ 46.
Awah also questions Mansfield Kaseman's privacy protocols. The Complaint takes issue with Defendant Lezama having some non-specific contact with the Social Security Administration about Awah. ECF No. 1 ¶ 78. Further, the Complaint avers that the Clinic Defendants invaded Awah's privacy by providing at one of the medical visits a “live feed of a creepy looking man” (a Spanish interpreter) who made nonspecific “racist gestures” and observed Awah's visit. Id. ¶¶ 48-50.
Awah also had difficulties obtaining his medical records upon request. ECF No. 1 ¶ 37. Specifically, Defendant Melara's refusal to transmit necessary records to another medical facility, Awah maintains, violated his “rights to his own medical records.” Id. ¶ 80. Additionally, Awah had to incur expenses that Latinx patients did not. Awah, for instance, was once charged “twice the amount charged to Latino patients.” Id. ¶ 40. Melara also falsely told him that no funding was available for an emergency eye surgery that he needed after sustaining injuries during a stabbing. Id. ¶ 41. This persistent discriminatory conduct has caused Awah “mental distress, emotional trauma, embarrassment, humiliation, and lost or jeopardized present or future financial opportunities.” Id. ¶ 84.
Awah first saw Dr. Farnoosh on March 10, 2021 for pain in two molars. ECF No. 1 ¶ 53. After an examination and x-rays, Dr. Farnoosh told Awah that one of his teeth needed to be pulled. Id. ¶ 54. Initially, Dr. Farnoosh planned to pull the tooth at the first visit; however, after learning that Awah had not eaten breakfast, Dr. Farnoosh decided against the procedure. Id. ¶¶ 55-56. Dr. Farnoosh rescheduled the extraction for six days later. Id. ¶ 56. Awah later learned that dental patients should not eat before a tooth extraction, advice that was contrary to Dr. Farnoosh's representations. Id. Still, Awah returned to Dr. Farnoosh on March 16th to have his tooth pulled. Id. ¶ 59. Ultimately, Dr. Farnoosh did not perform the procedure at the second visit because Awah's blood pressure had been elevated and his medical chart revealed a history of other health complications. Id. ¶¶ 59-61. The Complaint avers, in conclusory fashion, that Dr. Farnoosh manipulated the blood pressure machine as part of a conspiracy with the Clinic Defendants to discriminate against him on the basis of his race. See Id. ¶ 62. As a result of the “conspiracy, ” Awah left the appointment in excruciating pain, which led to his eventual addiction to painkillers. Id. ¶ 87. Awah maintains that Dr. Farnoosh's substandard care was motivated by discriminatory animus. Id. ¶ 63.
Dissatisfied with the medical and dental treatment he received, Awah filed a nine-count Complaint alleging race discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 and Freedom of Information Act; and companion conspiracy and state law claims against all Defendants. See generally ECF No. 1. Awah also pursues a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Farnoosh only, which Dr. Farnoosh opposes. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 90; ECF No. 25-1 at 24-26. The Clinic Defendants moved jointly to dismiss the Complaint on several grounds. ECF No. 16. Dr. Farnoosh essentially joined the motion. ECF No. 25-1 at 1 n.1. Awah responded to the Clinic Defendants' motion on August 18, 2021. ECF No. 18. The Court also granted Awah's requested additional time to respond separately to Dr. Farnoosh's motion (ECF No. 31), but Awah has not done so. The motions are now ready for resolution.
A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). A complaint need only satisfy the standard of Rule 8, which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). That showing must consist of more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to him. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations, however, “must be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative level.” Id. “‘[N]aked assertions of wrongdoing necessitate some factual enhancement within the complaint to cross the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (internal...
To continue reading
Request your trial