Barnes v. Omega Labs., Inc., 4:16-CV-121-DMB-JMV
Decision Date | 24 March 2017 |
Docket Number | NO. 4:16-CV-121-DMB-JMV,4:16-CV-121-DMB-JMV |
Parties | CHAQUITA BARNES PLAINTIFF v. OMEGA LABORATORIES, INC. DEFENDANT |
Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Mississippi |
Before the Court is "Omega Laboratories, Inc.'s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Chaquita Barnes's Original Complaint." Doc. #4. For the reasons below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
During the spring 2016 semester, Chaquita Barnes was enrolled in the Medical Laboratory Technology Health Science Program at Mississippi Delta Community College ("MDCC"). Doc. #1 at ¶¶ 7, 8. On March 29, 2016, in accordance with MDCC's randomized drug screening policy, Barnes submitted a hair sample to be screened for drug use. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. Barnes' hair sample was sent to Omega Laboratories, Inc. for testing. Id. at ¶ 9.
On or about April 4, 2016, Barnes' drug screening results returned "showing a positive result for large amounts of Cocaine." Id. at ¶ 11; Doc. #1-1. As a result, on April 7, 2016, MDCC informed Barnes that "she would be dismissed from the program." Doc. #1 at ¶ 12. The same day, Barnes, who had never used illegal drugs,1 went to the Greenville Family Medical Clinic and obtained a second hair follicle test from LabCorp, Inc. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13. The results from this second drug screening returned negative for all tested drugs, including cocaine. Id. at ¶14; Doc. #1-2.
Barnes notified the Vice President of Student Services at MDCC of the negative results and asked to be retested but her request was denied. Doc. #1 at ¶ 17. Barnes appealed her dismissal from MDCC but the dismissal was upheld. Id. at ¶¶ 17-18; Doc. #1-3. Due to her dismissal, Barnes did not receive credit for the spring 2016 semester and was not reimbursed for fees and tuition paid. Doc. #1 at ¶ 20. To reapply for admission into the program, Barnes must "undergo a 10-week drug rehabilitation program at her own expense, even though she has never taken or used any illegal drugs." Id. at ¶ 19.
On June 13, 2016, Barnes filed a complaint in this Court against Omega, alleging causes of action for negligence, and "defamation and slander." Doc. #1. Barnes seeks "to recover the full amount of monetary damages under Mississippi law," including damages for past and future mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. Id. at ¶ 29. On August 1, 2016, Omega filed a motion to dismiss Barnes' complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. #4. On August 15, 2016, Barnes responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss, Doc. #14; and Omega replied on August 22, 2016, Doc. #19.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544) (internal citations omitted).
Omega has moved to dismiss Barnes' claims for negligence and "defamation and slander."
In order to state a claim for negligence under Mississippi law, a plaintiff must allege the following elements: "(a) duty or standard of care, (b) breach of that duty or standard, (c) proximate causation, and (d) damages or injury." Arnona v. Smith, 749 So.2d 63, 66 (Miss. 1999).
In her complaint, Barnes alleges that Omega owed her a duty "to exercise reasonable care in the performance of an accurate hair drug screening and to accurately report the results to MDCC." Doc. #1 at ¶ 21. She contends Omega breached this duty when it conducted the hairdrug screening in a manner "that left room for erroneous results, including, but not limited to the failure to complete and provide chain-of-custody documentation;" reported to MDCC incorrect hair drug screening results; failed to advise her and MDCC "of the risk of obtaining a false positive result for any number of reasons; and ... all other acts of negligence as will be shown at trial." Id. at ¶ 22.
In its motion to dismiss, Omega contends that (1) it "does not owe Barnes a duty to inform her or Mississippi Delta Community College of all possible reasons for her cocaine-positive drug test result;" (2) it "did not collect the hair specimen at issue, nor control the third-party that collected [the] hair specimen;" and (3) "her negligence claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine." Doc. #4 at 1.
Omega contends that the alleged duty to Barnes to inform her and MDCC of the risk of a false positive in her cocaine positive result is "impermissibly broad" and "would require Omega to inform each of its customers and testing donors of not only alternative explanations for a cocaine positive test result, but of all possible causes of any positive drug test result." Doc. #5 at 4. It further contends that "[t]here is no precedent for the imposition of such a broad, undefined duty under Mississippi law." Id. In support, Barnes cites cases from other jurisdictions holding that a laboratory does not owe a duty to an employee to inform the employer of all possible causes of a positive alcohol or drug test result.2 Id. at 5-7.
Barnes fails to defend against the argument that Omega owed her no duty to inform her or MDCC of alternative explanations for her cocaine-positive drug screening. Accordingly,Barnes's negligence claim is abandoned to the extent it is premised on the allegation that Omega failed "to advise [her] and MDCC of the risk of obtaining a false positive result for any number of reasons." See U.S. ex rel Woods v. SouthernCare, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-313, 2013 WL 1339375 at *7 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 30, 2013) () (collecting cases).
Barnes alleges that Omega breached its duty when it "fail[ed] to complete and provide chain-of-custody documentation." Doc. #1 at ¶ 22.a. Omega argues that because it did not collect the hair specimen, it owed Barnes no duty regarding the collection of the hair specimen by third-parties.3 Doc. #5 at 8. In support of its argument, Omega cites cases holding that there is no duty to control the conduct of a third party.4 Id. However, Barnes fails to address these arguments in her response. As such, her negligence claim is abandoned to the extent it is premised on the chain-of-custody allegation. Woods, 2013 WL 1339375 at *7.
Omega argues that "to the extent that Barnes alleges that [it] negligently tested her hair specimen and reported 'incorrect hair drug screening results,' ... Barnes's claim is barred by the economic-loss doctrine." Doc. #5 at 8. Omega contends that Barnes' "only alleged injuries arethe loss of tuition and dismissal from MDCC's Medical Laboratory Health Science Program." Id. at 8-9. In making this argument, Omega maintains that Barnes' "conclusory allegations of mental anguish or emotional distress are insufficient to prevent the application of the economic loss doctrine." Id. at n.6.
In response, Barnes argues that Mississippi does not recognize the economic loss doctrine outside of the context of products liability cases; that Omega "disregards the fact that [her] complaint includes a claim for damages resulting from her past and future mental anguish and the loss of enjoyment of life;" and that the issue before the Court on a 12(b)(6) motion is not her proof of damages but "whether she has adequately plead facts that would entitle her to relief." Doc. #15 at 14, 16-17. In reply, Omega reiterates its argument that the economic loss doctrine applies5 and also argues that "Barnes's mere allegation of embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish are not sufficient to allege an injury cognizable in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim."6 Doc. #19 at 4 & n.2.
The economic loss doctrine is a rule "restricting recovery in products liability to damages for physical harm, thereby excluding recovery for purely economic damages." Ga. Flight of Del., Inc. v. Gulfport Aviation Partners, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-97, 2016 WL 3034331, at *2 (S.D. Miss. May 27, 2016) (quoting Lyndon Prop. Ins. Co. v. Duke Levy...
To continue reading
Request your trial