Hills v. Praxair, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | 11-CV-678S |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
| Parties | JAMES D. HILLS, Plaintiff, v. PRAXAIR, INC., AETNA, INC., BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., CRAWFORD & COMPANY, INC., OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, STEVE ANGEL, RONALD WILLIAMS, MARK BERTOLINI, KEN MARTINO, ALDO ZUCARO, JAMES BREEDLOVE, JOHN DAY, SALLY SAVOIA, RICHARD PETRONIO, GARRY BREITBACH, LINDA MORGAN, LEONARD KAPLAN, CONNI KRYSIAK, GORDON STEINAGLE, DAWN IMMOHR, CHRISTOPHER TIBERIO, NICOLE RUDOLPH, KEITH WESLEY, DEANA JUNE, ERIE CLAVELL, MELVIN BROTHMAN, GINGER SCHROEDER, LINDA JOSEPH, SUSAN DUFFY, and CORY LOUDENSLAGER, Defendants. |
Plaintiff James D. Hills brings this employment discrimination action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117 ("ADA"), the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) ("HIPAA"), and state law. Plaintiff's claims arise out of his employment with Praxair, Inc., during which time various defendants allegedly interfered with his medical treatment, denied him benefits and accommodations, released confidential medical information, and ultimately terminated his employment. Presently before this Court are motions to dismiss or,alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings by eight groups of defendants representing the 30 individuals and entities against whom Plaintiff brings his claims. These groupings, and their accompanying motions are as follows:
As discussed below, these motions are granted and Plaintiff's claims are dismissed, with the partial exception of the claims against Praxair, Inc. and Aetna, Inc.
Prior to reaching the grounds for this conclusion, this Court must address Plaintiff's response, dated October 17, 2011, which, while having crossed out the words "FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" is, in fact, an amended complaint.2 Plaintiff has even attached a copy of his original August 11, 2011 complaint to his response, in partial compliance with this Court's local rules. See L.R. 15(a).
Plaintiff's amended complaint changes none of the substantive claims from the original complaint, but does add a table detailing which of the various counts go against which defendants. It also includes, underneath each numbered paragraph, a detailed listing of all the counts to which that factual allegation relates. Defendants, after initially arguing in their motions that Plaintiff's complaint failed to differentiate between them or specify as to whom his claims applied, have generally treated Plaintiff's response as an amended pleading.
District courts have broad discretion to grant a party leave to amend its pleadings and the federal rules dictate that leave to amend is freely granted when justice so requires. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2). What this Court interprets as a proposed amendmentsubstantially clarifies Plaintiff's claims. Further, defendants' responses to the revised pleading demonstrates that they would suffer little prejudice from accepting Plaintiff's submission as an amended complaint. Accordingly, this Court will consider Plaintiff's "Response to Motions" (Docket No. 27) as a motion to amend his complaint, and this Court will henceforth refer to that submission as Plaintiff's complaint.3 Having so found, and for the sake of efficiency and expediency, as well as because the amended pleading raises no new claims or factual allegations, this Court will resolve defendants' eight pending motions as against this first amended complaint.
The facts in this case are complex and span over more than three years time. This Court will, for the sake of convenience and clarity, divide the relevant facts according to their chronological and topical significance.4 These facts are taken from Plaintiff's amended complaint and the exhibits identified in the exhibit list attached to that complaint, as well as from Plaintiff's opposing memoranda. See Brandon v. O'Mara, No. 10 Civ. 5174(RJH), 2011 WL 4478492, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011).
Plaintiff was hired by Praxair, Inc. on January 11, 1999. (Am. Comp. ¶ 38, Docket No. 27.) Plaintiff worked as a senior engineer, whose work included overseas travel to various locations. (Pl.'s Ex. O, ¶ 16.)5 In the course of a pre-employment physical Plaintiff disclosed various disabilities, and thereafter enrolled in the Short Term Disability ("STD") and Long Term Disability ("LTD") benefit plans, administered through Aetna, Inc. (Am. Comp. ¶¶ 38-39.) Plaintiff thereafter, in February of 2007, was diagnosed with severe bilateral spinal stenosis and approved for benefits pursuant to the STD benefit plan from February of 2007 until May 21, 2007. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 42.)
Following his diagnosis, Plaintiff was allegedly threatened with termination on a number of occasions. On February 16, 2007, Plaintiff's former supervisors, defendants Breitbach and Petronio, as well as Krysiak, a Praxair, Inc. employee, threatened Plaintiff with termination should he not maintain his regular workload while on disability leave. (Id. ¶ 43.) The same defendants threatened Plaintiff again on May 21, 2007, this time warning that Plaintiff would be terminated from his position if he took additional time off for disability-related reasons. (Id. ¶ 49.) Afterwards, sometime in July of 2007, Krysiak again threatened Plaintiff with termination, this time for violating Praxair, Inc.'s "People Excellence Policy." (Id. ¶ 52.) Throughout this period, until March of 2008, Praxair, Inc. denied Plaintiff promotions and transfers, as well as other, unspecified, benefits. (Id. ¶ 55.)
The stress and anxiety of Plaintiff's disability and the threats of termination led himto consider getting mental health treatment. He was warned, however, by defendant and nurse Linda Morgan that doing so was "a career ender" and would, itself, result in termination. (Id. ¶ 47; Pl.'s Ex. O, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff opted not to seek mental health treatment. (Pl.'s Ex. O, ¶ 6.)
Contemporaneous with the problems Plaintiff was experiencing at work, he was also encountering problems dealing with Aetna, Inc., Praxair's claim administrator. Aetna, Inc. denied receiving various pieces of unspecified medical information sent by Plaintiff. (Am. Comp. ¶ 44.) In response to a request for medical records, Plaintiff received, along with other documents, an "AUTHORIZATION TO SHARE AND USE MEDICAL INFORMATION," in his name, but that did not carry his original signature. (Id. ¶ 50.)6 Further inquiry revealed that the original had been destroyed pursuant to company policy. (Id.) Aetna, Inc. also failed to provide a disability rating criteria, on the basis that Aetna does "not utilize specific rating criteria's [sic] in assessing disability, as our decisions are based on your disability." (Pl.'s Ex. F.)
Despite basing its decision on Plaintiff's disability, Aetna, Inc. allegedly downgraded the severity of Plaintiff's condition. (Am. Comp. ¶ 44.)7 Then, on August 20, 2007, Plaintiff was informed that as a result of a billing error, Aetna was retroactively denying benefit payments from April 8, 2007 to August 20, 2007. (Id. ¶ 53.)
Praxair, Inc., through Nurse Morgan, also ordered Plaintiff to stop seeing his treating physician, a neurosurgeon, and instead commence treatment with Dr. Leonard Kaplan. (Id. ¶ 46.) Praxair, Inc. allegedly described Dr. Kaplan, also a defendant in this action, as "Praxair's neurosurgeon," though, as Plaintiff would later discover, Kaplan was not a neurological specialist. (Id.)
Upon Plaintiff's return to work in May of 2007, Plaintiff requested various workplace accommodations. These included an anti-fatigue mat, a hands-free handset, an adjustable chair and stand-up workstation, and travel accommodations, which included more leg room and the ability to get up and move during flights. (Id. ¶ 48; Pl.'s Ex. O, ¶ 12.) These requests were denied for several months until Plaintiff put them in writing, at which point the accommodations were granted, including ones Plaintiff did not request, with the exception of his requested travel accommodations. (Pl.'s Ex. O, ¶ 12.)
On March 20, 2008, Plaintiff was returning from a business trip when he was hit by a motor vehicle. (Id. ¶ 56.) As a result of the motor vehicle accident ("MVA"), Plaintiff suffered various injuries, including to his head, necessitating treatment at Buffalo General Hospital. (Pl.'s Ex. O, ¶ 17.) Plaintiff immediately contacted Praxair, Inc. to make them aware of the situation. (Am. Comp. ¶ 57.)
Upon being discharged from the hospital with a neck brace, Plaintiff sought treatment with Kaplan on March 21, 2008. Plaintiff informed Kaplan...
To continue reading
Request your trial