Holcomb v. Monahan

• Decision Date: 30 November 1992
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 92-A-522-N.
• Citation: Holcomb v. Monahan, 807 F.Supp. 1526 (M.D. Ala. 1992)
• Parties: Rosie Nell HOLCOMB, as Administrator of the Estate of Barbara Jean Smith, Deceased, v. Paul P. MONAHAN, M.D. and Humana Medical Corporation, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital — Montgomery.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

807 F. Supp. 1526

Rosie Nell HOLCOMB, as Administrator of the Estate of Barbara Jean Smith, Deceased, v.Paul P. MONAHAN, M.D. and Humana Medical Corporation, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital — Montgomery.

Civ. A. No. 92-A-522-N.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, N.D.

November 30, 1992.

Tom Dutton, Birmingham, AL, for plaintiff.

Paul Monahan, pro se.

Armstead L. Hayes, III, Montgomery, AL, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALBRITTON, District Judge.

This cause is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant identified as Humana, Inc., d/b/a/ Humana Hospital — Montgomery ("Humana Hospital"), on June 3, 1992.For the reasons set out below, the court is of the opinion that the Motion to Dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part.Additionally, the court is of the opinion that it does not have jurisdiction over DefendantPaul P. Monahan, M.D.("Monahan")(Humana Hospital and Monahan collectively referred to as "Defendants") and sua sponte dismisses the complaint against him.

I.Facts

Barbara Jean Smith("Smith") sought medical treatment from the Emergency Room at Humana Hospital on May 4, 1990.She was attended by Monahan.According to Plaintiff, when Smith entered Humana Hospital she was one week postpartum, had a temperature in excess of 104 degrees, had a rapid pulse, and had an elevated respiration rate.On May 9, 1990, Smith died.

Plaintiff alleges that Smith died as a result of the Defendants' failure to adequately screen Smith to determine the nature and extent of her condition.Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide Smith with treatment to stabilize her condition or to provide her transfer to another medical facility, but instead, discharged her from the emergency room in an unstabilized condition.

Plaintiff filed suit on April 27, 1992 alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, et seq.,¹ the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act²("EMTALA").She seeks the civil penalty authorized by § 1395dd(d)(1)(A)³, which permits recovery of civil money penalties of not more than $50,000.00 against hospitals, the civil penalty authorized by § 1395dd(d)(1)(B)⁴, which permits recovery of civil money penalties of not more than $50,000.00 against physicians, and damages under the Alabama Wrongful Death Act, pursuant to § 1395dd(d)(2)(A)⁵.

Humana Hospital has moved to dismiss for four reasons: (1) that the Defendant does not own, operate, or manage the Humana Hospital — Montgomery; (2) that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because she failed to comply with Ala.Code § 6-5-551(Supp.1987);(3) that Plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (4) that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

II.Analysis

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations.Hishon v. King & Spalding,467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59(1984);see alsoWright v. Newsome,795 F.2d 964, 967(11th Cir.1986)("We may not ... dismiss unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims in the complaint that would entitle him or her to relief.").The court will accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.Hishon,467 U.S. at 73, 104 S.Ct. at 2232;Taffet v. Southern Co.,930 F.2d 847, 851(11th Cir.1991).

A.

Humana Hospital first alleges that the complaint should be dismissed because the Plaintiff has not properly sued Humana Hospital.Defendant claims that Humana, Inc. does not own or operate Humana Hospital — Montgomery.In her Response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant was sufficiently identified such that Humana Medical Corporation, Inc., the proper party, was on proper notice of the claim against it.In fact, Plaintiff points out that Humana Hospital attached the affidavit of Lee Ashbury, Executive Director of Humana — Montgomery, in support of its Motion to Dismiss.Additionally, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, substituting Humana Medical Corporation, Inc. for Humana, Inc.This amendment relates back to the date of the original complaint.Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c).Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss on this ground is due to be denied.

B.

Humana Hospital next argues that dismissal is proper because the Plaintiff failed to comply with Ala.Code § 6-5-551⁶, which requires that medical malpractice claims be pled with detailed specification and a factual description of each act and omission alleging liability of a health care provider.Plaintiff contends that this is not a medical malpractice claim and § 6-5-551, therefore, does not apply.

The Plaintiff has filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, et seq. in federal court, rather than under a state law cause of action in state court.Since the Plaintiff has filed in federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply.Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 1.Under the Federal Rules, Rule 8 requires that the pleading contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief."Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 8(a)(2).This does not require the Plaintiff to plead his claim with the particularity required by Ala.Code § 6-5-551.Defendant has not cited the court to any provision in the Federal Rules that would require Plaintiff's complaint to be pled with the specificity and detail required by § 6-5-551, nor has it cited the court to any case law that has determined that a complaint under the EMTALA should be pled with any more specificity than that required by Rule 8.

The Federal Rules were designed to require pleading that stated enough information to put the opposing party on notice.Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 47-8, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80(1957).The Rules do not require a plaintiff to make her entire case in her complaint.In fact, "the pleading of evidence is disfavored and evidentiary material may be stricken from the complaint."Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Meat Price Investigator's Ass'n,449 U.S. 905, 101 S.Ct. 280, 66 L.Ed.2d 137(1980).Although Defendant is not asking Plaintiff to attach evidentiary material, the principle remains the same; in federal court, a pleading that puts the opposing party on notice of alleged acts or omissions is sufficient.

Section 1395dd(f) does provide that "the provisions of this section do not preempt any state or local law requirement, except to the extent that the requirement directly conflicts with a requirement of this section."Section 6-5-551, Code of Alabama, applies, however, to a cause of action, in contract or tort, against a health care provider based upon an alleged breach of the standard of care.Conversely, § 1395dd is based upon liability for violation of statutory requirements.The federal cause of action is independent of and wholly separate from any state cause of action for breach of a standard of care.The pleading necessary for a state medical malpractice action, a state procedural requirement, is totally different from and irrelevant to a cause of action based upon violation of a federal statute.SeeReid v. Indianapolis Osteopathic Medical Hosp., Inc.,709 F.Supp. 853, 855(S.D.Ind.1989).Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss on this ground is due to be denied.

C.

Humana Hospital alleges that the complaint is due to be dismissed because it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.⁷Section 1395dd(d)(2)(C) provides that "no action may be brought under this paragraph more than two years after the date of the violation with respect to which the action is brought."Plaintiff alleges that the acts or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred on May 4, 1990.The complaint was filed on April 27, 1992.The complaint was, therefore, timely filed.The Motion to Dismiss on this ground is due to be denied.

D.

Finally, Humana Hospital alleges that the complaint is due to be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Plaintiff is demanding penalties from Humana Hospital under § 1395dd(d)(1)(A), which permits a civil money penalty of not more than $50,000.00 against a participating hospital that negligently⁸ violates a requirement of the statute, and damages under Alabama's Wrongful Death Act, pursuant to § 1395dd(d)(2)(A), which authorizes such recovery by an individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a participating hospital's violation of a requirement of the statute.

Section 1395dd(d)(1)(A) is a civil penalty provision to be enforced by the United States Government or one of its agencies, not by a private plaintiff.See42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a, made applicable by § 1395dd(d)(1)(A);Cf.Baber v. Hospital Corp. of America,977 F.2d 872(4th Cir.1992)("Administrative sanctions are penalties imposed by and paid to the Department of Health and Human Services; they are not available to private parties.");Burditt v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services,934 F.2d 1362, 1375(5th Cir.1991)⁹.Section 1395dd(d)(2)(A) is the only provision that allows for enforcement by a private plaintiff.Therefore, Plaintiff's claim against Humana Hospital is governed by § 1395dd(d)(2)(A).The demand under § 1395dd(d)(1)(A) is due to be dismissed because there is no set of facts that would entitle Plaintiff to recover a civil money penalty against Humana under this section.

Although Plaintiff did not aver that she was seeking damages pursuant to § 1395dd(d)(2)(A), it is clear to the court that since Plaintiff made a claim for damages for wrongful death available under state law, and such damages are only authorized by § 1395dd(d)(2)(A), that she is seeking to invoke jurisdiction pursuant to this section.The complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted under this section, and the Motion to Dismiss is due to be denied as...