Franks v. Indian Rivers Mental Health Ctr.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 7:08-CV-1035-SLB |
| Parties | TERRI FRANKS, Plaintiff, v. INDIAN RIVERS MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
This case is currently before the court on plaintiff Terri Franks's ("Franks") Motion in Limine to Exclude Exhibits Summarizing Unproduced Evidence, (doc. 31), defendant Indian Rivers Mental Health Center's ("Indian Rivers") Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Affidavit, (doc. 42), and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 34). Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and arguments of counsel, the court is of the opinion that Franks's Motion in Limine, (doc. 31), is due to be granted, Indian Rivers' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Affidavit, (doc. 42), is due to be granted in part and denied in part, and Indian Rivers' Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 34), is due to be granted in part and denied in part.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) requires the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to "weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 249. Credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences from the facts are left to the jury, and, therefore, evidence favoring the non-moving party is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. See id. at 255. Nevertheless, the non-moving party "need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference." Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 1274, 1282 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Brown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n.12 (11th Cir. 1988)) (emphasis added).
Franks has sued her former employer, Indian Rivers, alleging Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, HIPPA / invasion of privacy, negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress causes of action, (see generally doc. 1),1 arising out of actions taken by Indian Rivers before and during her FMLA leave and the termination of her employment by Indian Rivers immediately following her return from FMLA leave. (See generally id.)2
Indian Rivers is a non-profit, quasi-governmental agency that provides mental health and mental retardation services for individuals in Tuscaloosa, Bibb, and Pickens Counties, Alabama. (IRB, Ex. B at 19 & 21.) Franks, who has a Master's Degree in community counseling, a Bachelor's Degree in psychology, and is a licensed professional counselor, washired by Indian Rivers in 1993. (FRO, Ex. 1 ¶ 2.) Franks worked in many areas of Indian Rivers from 1993-1997. In 1997, she became the Adult Outpatient Program (the "AOP") Coordinator at Indian Rivers. (Id.) In 2006, Franks applied for the newly created position of AOP Manager and was deemed an outstanding candidate. (FRO, Ex. 10 at exs. 13, 14, & 15.) In March of 2006, Franks was promoted to AOP Manager. (FRO, Ex. 1 ¶ 2; doc. 1 ¶ 12.) As the AOP Manager, one of Franks's main responsibilities was overseeing Treatment Plan Reviews ("TPR") for Indian Rivers' patients. (IRB, Ex. A at 43.) Franks, as Manager of the AOP, was also responsible for intake assessment, probate matters, the Crisis Response Team and Substance Abuse Services, group and individual therapy, crisis intervention, mental retardation services, and the Case Management Program. (IRB, Ex. A at 37-48 & 54-56; FRO, Ex. 1 ¶ 3.)
The TPR is a process established by the State Department of Mental Health and by Medicaid whereby a certified reviewer reviews a treatment plan on a set schedule. Medicaid and residential patients are reviewed every 90 days, while self pay and private insurance patients are reviewed once a year. (IRB, Ex. A at 43, 56-57, 59-60, & 93.) Only a certified reviewer with proper credentials may sign TPRs. (IRB, Ex. A at 55 & 68; IRB, Ex. C at 56-57.) However, the primary reviewer of the treatment plan need not be licensed and could be the therapist treating the patient or the person overseeing their treatment. The secondary reviewer that checks the primary reviewers work is required to be a licensed professional. (IRB, Ex. A at 55 & 67-68.) To complete a TPR, the reviewer must pull the patient's chartor file, review the treatment plan and notes or other documentation in the record to determine whether the services had been provided and to determine the patient's response to the services, whether the patient had been compliant, whether the patient had made progress, and whether that level of service should be continued. (IRB, Ex. A at 44-46 & 57-58.) A TPR aims to certify that (1) the treatment set out in a patient's treatment plan is medically necessary; (2) the goals, objectives, and interventions remain appropriate; (3) the documentation in the file accurately reflects the treatment being provided; and (4) that continued treatment is recommended. (IRB, Ex. A at 52-58, 91, & ex. 14.)
Franks is familiar with Medicaid guidelines and TPRs. (IRB, Ex. A at 47.) She knew the importance of proper and timely documentation in TPRs. (IRB, Ex. A at 76-90; see IRB, Ex. A at ex. 2.) She led a review of the forms process, developed the TPR form used by Indian Rivers, and trained other staff members on treatment plans and TPRs. (IRB, Ex. A at 44-46 & 58.) Franks reviewed the TPRs in the AOP because she was a licensed professional counselor. (IRB, Ex. A at 55-56 & 92.) For the TPRs she reviewed, Franks was responsible for making sure that everything contained in the TPR was correct and properly documented and in compliance with all federal and state requirements. (IRB, Ex. A at 68.) Franks, however, had no control over the employees in the file room and those employees' ability to file all medical records timely and correctly. Specifically, notes and other information necessary to complete a TPR and make the required determination were frequently missing from the file, misfiled, or still in the doctor's office. (IRB, Ex. A at 104-07, 117-18, 133-38, 143, 151, 164, 170-72, 180-81, 190-91, 194-98, 208, & 217; IRB, Ex. C at 181-82; FRO, Ex. 10 at ex. 41.) Consequently, the information available to the TPR reviewer was often compromised. (IRB, Ex. A at 104-07, 117-18, 133-38, 143, 151, 164, 170-72, 180-81, 190-91, 194-98, 208, & 217; IRB, Ex. B at 243-44; IRB, Ex. C at 52, 217-19, & 188-90; FRO, Ex. 9 at 39.)
On March 20, 2006, shortly after Franks was promoted to the AOP Manager position, Connie Robbins ("Robbins"), the Clinical Director at Indian Rivers, asked Franks to create a system to monitor quality issues for the AOP, including record reviews, which encompassed TPRs. (IRB, Ex. A at 102-03 & ex. 6; IRB, Ex. E.) Robbins told Franks that Franks needed to develop a system for reviewing TPRs with due dates to ensure that Indian Rivers was in compliance with all federal and state requirements. (IRB, Ex. E.) Indian Rivers contends that Franks initiated a system to review TPRs and implemented that system in May and June of 2006, but did not follow through when the reviews were due to be performed in August and September of 2006. (Doc. 34 at 4 (citing IRB, Ex. E).) Indian Rivers also contends that because Franks was behind with her TPRs and had not yet implemented an effective monitoring system, Robbins met with Plaintiff and addressed this again in her performance evaluation in November or December of 2006. (Doc. 34 at 4 .) However, there is evidence that Franks did follow through with the TPR monitoring system. (FRO, Ex. 10 at ex. 41; IRB, Ex. A at 105-09; FRO, Ex. 4 ¶ 3.) After Franks was promoted to AOP Manager andworked under Robbins for a year, Robbins scored Franks higher than the year before on her yearly evaluation in November 2006. (FRO, Ex. 10 at ex. 12; IRB, Ex. C at 210.) Robbins did not record any issue with Franks TPR performance on Franks's yearly evaluation in November 2006. (FRO, Ex. 10 at ex. 12.) In March 2007, Robbins openly praised Franks, Brittany Blackston, and Lisa Geist for their work in implementing an effective TPR system. (FRO, Ex. 4 ¶ 3.)
In October of 2006, Franks experienced medical problems as a result of two herniated discs in her neck. (Doc. 39-1 ¶ 4; IRB, Ex. A at 213.) Franks was having difficulty functioning due to her neck problems. (Doc. 39-1 ¶ 4; IRB, Ex. A at 213.) Franks informed Robbins that she needed to have surgery on her neck within the next few months. (Doc. 39-1 ¶ 4; IRB, Ex. A at 213.) Robbins became openly and obviously panicked. (Doc. 39-1 ¶ 4.) Robbins told Franks that there was a lot of work to do and that Indian Rivers could not afford to have Franks off work until after an audit by the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. (Id.) Franks told Robbins that she had put the surgery off for five years and would put off going into the hospital for as long as she could, but that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial