Center for Legal Advocacy v. Earnest, Civ.A.01-WY-642-CB.

• Decision Date: 22 February 2002
• Docket Number: No. Civ.A.01-WY-642-CB.,Civ.A.01-WY-642-CB.
• Citation: 188 F.Supp.2d 1251
• Parties: CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY, d/b/a The Legal Center for People with Disabilities, a/k/a The Legal Center, Colorado's Protection and Advocacy System, P & A System, Plaintiff, v. Michael EARNEST, M.D., in his official capacity as Medical Director of Quality Review and Improvement, Patricia Gabow, M.D., in her official capacity as Medical Director and Chief Executive Officer, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, a/k/a Denver Health Medical Center, a/k/a DHMC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

188 F.Supp.2d 1251

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY, d/b/a The Legal Center for People with Disabilities, a/k/a The Legal Center, Colorado's Protection and Advocacy System, P & A System, Plaintiff, v. Michael EARNEST, M.D., in his official capacity as Medical Director of Quality Review and Improvement, Patricia Gabow, M.D., in her official capacity as Medical Director and Chief Executive Officer, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, a/k/a Denver Health Medical Center, a/k/a DHMC, Defendants.

No. Civ.A.01-WY-642-CB.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

February 22, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Terry Lee Fowler, Mark Joseph Ivandick, Legal Center for the Disabled, Denver, CO, for plaintiff.

Sharon E. Caulfield, Caplan & Earnest, L.L.C., Boulder, CO, for defendant.

ORDER

BRIMMER, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Center For Legal Advocacy ("CLA"), seeks a permanent injunction and declaratory relief granting it unfettered access to certain medical records, pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act ("PAIMI"), 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq., and the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act ("PAIR"), 29 U.S.C. § 794e. Defendants dispute Plaintiff's asserted entitlement, claiming they are precluded from releasing the information sought without ensuring the privacy safeguards imposed by the Public Health Service Act. 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 ("PHSA"). Currently before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff's Objections to Order of September 24th Denying it a Preliminary Injunction; 2) Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Objection to Order of September 24, 2001 Denying it a Preliminary Injunction; 3) Plaintiff's Federal Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 4) Plaintiff's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and 5) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon reading the briefs, hearing oral argument, and being fully advised of the premises, the Court FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

Background

On or about January 2, 2001, the Plaintiff, Center for Legal Advocacy, was notified of the death of an unidentified homeless person, referred to in Plaintiff's pleadings as D. Doe, at Denver Health Medical Care. D. Doe was admitted to Defendants' facility for treatment of acute alcohol intoxication and gash over his eyebrow (D. Doe was admitted with a reported blood alcohol level of .372%). The death allegedly resulted from acute alcohol intoxication and/or the improper use of restraints and tranquilizers by hospital staff. In attempting to gather information on the death of D. Doe under its statutory mandate Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have illegally blocked access to D. Doe's hospital records. Plaintiff contends Defendants are required to produce all records related to D. Doe's hospitalization and treatment under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act ("PAIMI"), 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq., and the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act ("PAIR"), 29 U.S.C. § 794e (incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 6041, et seq.). Plaintiff is currently seeking a permanent injunction against all future acts of Defendants which would have the effect of denying Plaintiff's right of access to facilities, records, employees, and residents. Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment affirming its access rights under PAIMI, and PAIR.

Defendants contend that they have complied with the provisions of PAIMI and PAIR to the extent that they are able, but are precluded from divulging D. Doe's alcohol treatment records under the privacy provisions contained in the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 ("PHSA"). Defendants argue that Plaintiff has refused to enter into agreements allowing for limited production of documents subject to non-disclosure restrictions. Additionally, Defendants have counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment stating that they are not required to produce records to the extent such production would violate the confidentiality requirements of the PHSA and accompanying regulations. Under the declaratory judgment sought by Defendants, CLA would have to demonstrate that the individual or a personal representative of the individual whose records are at issue has consented, obtain a court order in each instance, or enter into a written confidentiality agreement with Denver Health Medical Center.

By Order dated September 24, 2001, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. However, the Court provided that Defendants "shall make available to Plaintiff the records sought in this case under the terms and conditions of Defendants' Access and Confidentiality Agreement." The Court further denied Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Reconsideration of and Recision of Protective Order to Seal Exhibits and vacated, to the extent necessary to give effect to the Court's September 24, 2001 Order, the Magistrate's Protective Order to Seal Exhibits. Finally, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims.

Analysis

1) Plaintiff's Objections to Order of September 24th Denying it a Preliminary Injunction

The first issue before the Court is Plaintiff's Objections to Order of September 24th Denying it a Preliminary Injunction in which the Plaintiff requested that the Court reconsider its Order of September 24, 2001. Plaintiff did not file this objection/motion to reconsider until October 9, 2001, nor did Plaintiff state by what authority this motion was brought.

Although a motion to reconsider is not formally recognized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such a motion is generally construed in one of two ways. Federal Trade Commission v. Skybiz.com, Inc., 2001 WL 1673635, *1 (N.D.Okla.2001) (citing Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir.1995)). If the motion is filed within ten days of the district court's entry of judgment (or in this case entry of the Order denying the preliminary injunction), it is treated as a rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. Id. However, as here, when the motion is filed more than ten days after entry of judgment, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) Motion for relief from judgment. Id.

Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) evidence which was previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of the Paraclete v. John Does, I-XVI, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000). Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. Id. In support of its current motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff claims that the Court made a number of legal as well as factual errors.

First, Plaintiff argues that no evidence supports the Court's statement that "D. Doe was admitted for treatment of alcoholism, depression, and bipolar disorder," as Plaintiff claims that having a mental illness, which it admits D. Doe had, and receiving treatment for it are two separate things. Thus, Plaintiff claims that these findings were utterly unsupported, "arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and manifestly unreasonable." As will be discussed in greater detail in the section addressing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, D. Doe, an injured and severely intoxicated alcoholic, was admitted to Defendants' facility for treatment and diagnosis of his alcohol abuse problems as defined by the PHSA regulations. This is shown by the fact that D. Doe received treatment due to an alcohol abuse related injury in Defendants' emergency facility and such treatment may be described as a first step in obtaining treatment and diagnosis from Defendants' alcohol treatment facilities. Thus, there is adequate support for the Court's statement in its Order of September 24, 2001.

Second, Plaintiff contends that the Court, by including Defendants' "Access Agreement" as part of its September 24, 2001 Order, effectively granted Defendants' counterclaim for declaratory relief. Yet, by adopting the Defendants' "Access Agreement," the Court did not grant Defendants' Counterclaim for declaratory relief. The Court merely incorporated the "Access Agreement" as a way to balance the conflicting obligations of the parties, which allowed the Plaintiff to receive information while permitting Defendants to maintain their confidentiality obligations until the matters of permanent injunction and declaratory relief could be resolved. Additionally, the "Access Agreement" allows Plaintiff to dispute the application of the confidentiality regulations in any enforcement action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of D. Doe. Therefore, the "Access Agreement" did not grant relief in favor of Defendants' counterclaim, and it did not prejudice the Plaintiff.

Lastly, Plaintiff claims that the Court erred in applying 42 U.S.C. § 290-dd2 and 42 C.F.R. § 2 et seq to the present case, and that the Court ignored the clear intent of PAIMI to allow prompt death investigations by agencies such as the Plaintiff. The Court's reliance on the above statutes and its accompanying legal analysis was utilized to demonstrate that the Plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits, as required in a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See generally ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 1149, 1155 (10th Cir.1999).¹ Additionally, as will be discussed in the section addressing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court's analysis and incorporation of the above statutes was the proper application and interpretation of these statutes and regulations to the facts of this case.

Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff's Objection to Order of September 24, 2001 Denying it a Preliminary Injunction, requesting reconsideration of such Order, is hereby DENIED.

2) Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Objection to Order of September 24, 2001 Denying it a Preliminary Injunction

D...