Harrison v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 2:05 CV 0408.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:05 CV 0408.,2:05 CV 0408. |
| Citation | 432 F.Supp.2d 648 |
| Parties | Autumn Klosterman HARRISON v. CHRISTUS ST. PATRICK HOSPITAL, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Thomas J. Gayle, Drew Ranier, Rainer Gayle & Elliot, Lake Charles, LA, for Autumn Klosterman Harrison.
Richard E. Gerard, Jr, Scofield Gerard et al, Lake Charles, LA, David A. Dodds, Matthew S. Chester, Nicholas Even, Noel M. Hensley, Haynes & Boone, Dallas, TX, for Christus St. Patrick Hospital, et al.
WRITTEN REASONS
In a Report & Recommendation ("R & R") dated May 2, 2005 [doc. 27] the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiff's Motion to Remand [doc. 15] be granted, to which the defendants objected. Oral arguments were heard on August 18, 2006, at which time this court found the objections appropriate, overruling the R & R and denying remand.
In the complaint filed on March 4, 2005 [doc. 1], the plaintiff asserts five causes of action: breach of contract, unjust enrichment, injunctive/declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.1 In a removal action, the party seeking to remove a case to federal court has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.2 The Magistrate Judge concluded that the removing defendants had not met their burden and recommended remand.
The defendants raised four objections to the R & R:
1) The Magistrate Judge should not have "read around" the plaintiffs numerous references to and reliance upon the defendants' non-profit charitable status;
2) The plaintiffs allegations and requested declaratory relief implicate questions of federal healthcare policy, including Medicare or Medicaid regulations;
3) The R & R incorrectly concludes that the plaintiff must expressly assert a cause of action or expressly seek a remedy under the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA") to confer federal jurisdiction over claims regarding emergency room treatment; and
4) The existence of a private, federal remedy is not a prerequisite for federal jurisdiction in this state.
The defendants first argue that the Magistrate Judge should not have "read around" the plaintiffs numerous references to and reliance upon the defendants' non-profit charitable status. The complaint contains numerous references to this status3. The plaintiff also alleges under uncited Louisiana law that the defendants' status creates duties under which the defendants are required to give the same discounts to the plaintiff and the putative class as are given to Medicare, Medicaid and managed care patients. The Louisiana not-for-profit statutes that govern tax-exempt charitable institutions incorporate federal law. This court will be required to analyze the federal law, as well as the state law, to determine what rights and obligations these laws impose upon the parties.
The plaintiffs claim of breach of fiduciary duty cannot be resolved without interpreting federal laws. The alleged fiduciary duty is based upon the defendants' charitable status. The plaintiffs repeated references to the defendants' not-for-profit or charitable status implicates federal law and confers federal jurisdiction on this court. Although the plaintiff originally filed her lawsuit in state court pleading state claims, federal law, specifically the defendant's federal rights and obligations under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), is an essential element underlying the plaintiff's claims.
The plaintiffs allegations and requested declaratory relief also implicate questions of federal healthcare policy, including Medicare and Medicaid regulations. The definition of the putative class in the complaint is not based upon being insured or uninsured, but it is based upon the Medicare reimbursement rate. The plaintiff proposes that Medicare and Medicaid prices should be extended to non-indigent and uninsured4 patients. This proposition raises questions of federal health care policy.5 The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have been wrongful recipients of government subsidies and reimbursements. The Kolari6 case recognized that this argument implicates a question of national health care policy. A determination of the merits of this argument would mandate an interpretation of federal statutes governing Medicare, Medicaid and reimbursements under those programs.
The Magistrate Judge also determined that the plaintiff must expressly assert a cause of action or expressly seek a remedy under EMTALA to confer jurisdiction. The complaint contains repeated allegations of improper emergency room screening and/or treatment based upon the plaintiff's ability to pay.7 Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.8 Federal question jurisdiction may exist where the resolution of the state law cause of action "necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law."9 The lack of a clearly stated federal cause of action does not preclude removal.10 The EMTALA requires hospitals to provide care to any person requiring emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. Federal question jurisdiction in this case is conferred based upon the plaintiffs allegations of improper emergency room screening and/or treatment based upon the plaintiffs ability to pay.
The R & R also states that the Fifth Circuit requires the existence of a private, federal remedy to remove a case based upon a federal element embedded in a state cause of action.11 Whether a federal law is essential to a state law claim hinges on whether the federal right or obligation, as incorporated within a state law claim or claims, is "such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another."12 12 As in Bobo v. Christus Health, 359 F.Supp.2d 552, 556 (E.D.Tex., 2005), the plaintiff in the instant case contends that mere references to Section 501(c)(3) and federal tax exemptions do not create federal-question jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court's holding in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 813, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 3234-35, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986), that "the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction." The present case, however, involves elements of federal law that are essential to the plaintiffs state law claims, and the plaintiffs reliance on the principles enunciated in Merrell Dow is misplaced. The federal law at issue in this case is not collateral or remote. Rather, the plaintiffs "references" to the defendant's tax-exempt status is central to the dispute. Given the plaintiffs emphasis on the defendants' tax-exempt status, her argument that the federal right is not an essential element of her state law claims is unconvincing. Therefore, the federal statute in question is essential to the plaintiffs state law claim.
This court has also considered the convoluted history of this case and finds it to be a blatant attempt at forum manipulation.13 This case is part of myriad of similar cases filed nationwide against notfor-profit hospitals. Similarly situated Christus defendants have previously been removed and obtained a dismissal of similar claims in Texas.14 The plaintiff began this litigation by filing in the Middle District of Louisiana, despite the fact that she lives in the Western District of Louisiana and the hospital is located therein. The suit in the Middle District invoked federal jurisdiction over her claims. The defendants allege that when it became apparent to the plaintiff, through the questions of the judge in the Middle District, that this case may be transferred to this district, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit.
Then, in February 2005, the plaintiff refiled her suit in Calcasieu Parish, alleging nearly identical theories, but deleting express references to federal law.15 The case was removed to this court and the plaintiff moved for remand. When asked at oral arguments why the this case had been brought in the Middle District, rather than answering the question, plaintiffs counsel indicated that this was a decision made by "a collective group of people" who believed that their clients'"best interests" would be served by filing in the Middle District.16 Counsel could not explain why the Middle District would be a more advantageous forum.
The plaintiff argued that her suit is based entirely on state law claims that do not require an interpretation of the Medicare and Medicaid Acts, but counsel for the plaintiff could not adequately explain why this comparison would not be necessary. The plaintiff argued that the sole basis for this suit lies in Louisiana tort law, Civil Code article 2315. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that while an interpretation/comparison of the Medicare and Medicaid Acts would not be required, an analysis would be. These artful semantics are not persuasive. The references to Medicare and Medicaid in the complaint are not superfluous as suggested by the plaintiff. These acts are an integral part of the required analysis of these alleged claims.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the court found the objections appropriate, overruled the R & R and denied remand.
Before the court is plaintiff's motion to remand [doc. # 15].1
On January 15, 2003, Autumn Klosterman Harrison went to Christus St. Patrick Hospital's emergency room for treatment following a car accident. (Harrison II Complaint, 1123). Christus St. Patrick required Harrison to file a series of forms obligating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.J.W. v. Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-640-GMB
...a violation of EMTALA with a corresponding request for relief under the statute, even if they did not list it as a separate cause of action. Harrison v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital is also instructive. In that case, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case be remanded for lack of su......