Hooper v. Sachs

• Decision Date: 16 September 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. M-82-2870.
• Citation: 618 F. Supp. 963
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
• Parties: James L. HOOPER and Deer Park Medical Group, P.A. v. Stephen H. SACHS, Dale Kelberman, Andrew Tartaglino, Harold Rose, Cheryl Winchell, John Stoppleman, Jeffrey Rosen and Stoppleman and Rosen.

618 F. Supp. 963

James L. HOOPER and Deer Park Medical Group, P.A. v.Stephen H. SACHS, Dale Kelberman, Andrew Tartaglino, Harold Rose, Cheryl Winchell, John Stoppleman, Jeffrey Rosen and Stoppleman and Rosen.

Civ. A. No. M-82-2870.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

September 16, 1985.

Allen H. Sachsel and Stephen Armstrong, Fairfax, Va., John H. Conrad, Rockville, Md., and Arthur V. Butler, Wheaton, Md., for plaintiffs.

Paul F. Strain, Deputy Atty. Gen., Susan K. Gauvey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., for defendants Sachs, Kelberman, Tartaglino and Rose.

Gary Howard Simpson, Bethesda, Md., for defendant Winchell.

Alvin I. Frederick, Kenneth H. Meltzer and Eccleston and Seidler, Baltimore, Md., for defendants Stoppleman, Rosen, and Stoppleman and Rosen.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES R. MILLER, Jr., District Judge.

On September 9, 1983, the plaintiffs, James L. Hooper and Deer Park Medical Group, P.A., were granted leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), alleging violations of their civil rights stemming from an illegal search and seizure of certain records of the plaintiffs.Named as defendants were Attorney General Sachs, Assistant Attorney General Kelberman, two investigators with the Attorney General's Office, Tartaglino and Rose, and a private citizen, Dr. Winchell.The plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint "to the extent and only to the extent that it seeks to state a cause of action under § 1983 for warrantless search and seizure."(Paper 94at 4-5).This court stated that leave to amend was granted only as to those parts of paragraphs 14 and 18 of the proposed amended complaint (Paper 95) related to the Fourth Amendment claim.In addition, those parts of the complaint alleging gross negligence in supervising the search procedure giving rise to the Fourth Amendment claim(seePaper95, ¶¶ 22-24) were also considered as part of the amended complaint (Paper 94at 4).

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint(Papers 98, 99, 103) and the plaintiffs responded to their motions (Paper 104).

On May 25, 1984, a hearing on the motions to dismiss was held in open court.After hearing the arguments of all parties, the court instructed counsel to submit post-argument memoranda directed to the statute of limitations issue.The parties did so (Papers 112 & 113).

While a decision on the issues presented in the motions to dismiss was pending, the plaintiffs sought, and were granted, in part, leave to file a second amended complaint to add as defendants, Stoppleman and Rosen, a law firm, and John Stoppleman and Jeffrey Rosen, lawyers who apparently acted as counsel for defendant Winchell in prior state court civil cases(Paper 123, Court Order; Paper 124, Second Amended Complaint).Those new defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint(Paper 130).The plaintiffs have responded to that motion to dismiss(Paper 132).

I.Issues Before the Court

All defendants set forth similar arguments or adopt each other's arguments regarding the grounds on which the first or second amended complaint¹ should be dismissed.They are:

1) The Fourth Amendment claim set forth in the amended complaint does not relate back to the original complaint.

2) As a result, the amended complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.

3) Even if the complaint is not time barred, it fails to state a claim as to each defendant.

4) Even if the complaint states a claim, the statedefendants and Dr. Winchell are immune from suit.

II.Background

This case grows out of the prosecution of Dr. Hooper by the State of Maryland for Medicaid fraud.After the presentation of the prosecution's case, the state court apparently dismissed the criminal charges against Dr. Hooper.Dr. Hooper and Deer Park Medical Group, the professional association in which he is the main partner, subsequently filed suit in this court alleging numerous constitutional violations related to that prosecution.Only the alleged Fourth Amendment violation and related issues remain before this court for resolution.

Resolution of those issues requires an understanding of the relationship between Dr. Hooper and Dr. Winchell.After joining Deer Park Medical Group in 1972 as a doctor/employee, Dr. Winchell bought into the partnership in 1975.That partnership was not satisfactory to her and in 1978she left Deer Park and filed several civil suits in state court against Dr. Hooper and Deer Park Medical Group.

In Dr. Winchell's suit filed in equity, Winchell v. Deer Park Medical Group, et al.,No. 64714(Circuit Court for Montgomery County, October 11, 1978), she sought dissolution of the corporation, an injunction pendente lite and an accounting.Among the allegations stated in that complaint were allegations of Medicaid fraud (Paper 107, Ex. A, Complaint¶ 10(e)).

Dr. Winchell conducted discovery in her several state courtcases, but the discovery conducted in the equity case provides the basis for the Fourth Amendment claims set forth in the second amended complaint.The gravamen of that amended complaint is that Dr. Winchell was acting as an agent of the state when, on March 10, 1980, she conducted discovery pursuant to a discovery order issued in the equity case.Allegedly the statedefendants directed her to obtain evidence for them of Medicaid fraud — evidence, the plaintiffs contend, the statedefendants had no legal right to obtain, at least not without a proper subpoena.The plaintiffs further contend that, even if the statedefendants had attempted to obtain Medicaid records from Deer Park Medical Center with a subpoena, they could not have obtained records going back more than five years.They conclude that Dr. Winchell's copying of the Medicaid records and alleged subsequent delivery of some of them to the statedefendants constituted an illegal search and seizure.Messrs. Stoppleman and Rosen and their law firm are implicated, because they allegedly advised Dr. Winchell to conduct the alleged illegal search and seizure for the benefit of the State.

Normally, because the motions pending before this court are motions to dismiss, the court would not go beyond the amended complaint in deciding the issues.This case, however, has been before the court for almost three years.Motions to dismiss the complaint and amended complaints, and motions to reconsider have been presented and argued.Each party in previous motions has added to the record by providing exhibits and attaching depositions to the memoranda filed.Thus this court is cognizant of facts beyond the face of the second amended complaint—facts which are relevant to the issues presented for resolution.Therefore, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), this court will consider the full record before it, converting the motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment.In doing so, the court is aware that, at the request of the statedefendants, discovery has been stayed pending resolution of the immunity issue.To the extent that further discovery may be necessary to resolve that issue or other issues on summary judgment, such discovery will be ordered.

With those considerations in mind, the following chronology of facts, at this time, is not disputed.

As stated previously, Dr. Winchell initiated an equity action in state court on October 11, 1978 against Dr. Hooper and Deer Park.That court docket reveals that on May 31, 1979, Dr. Winchell filed a request for production of documents(Paper 107, Ex. B, docket entry 62).Apparently, Deer Park and Dr. Hooper refused to produce the requested documents, and, therefore, Dr. Winchell filed a motion to compel on June 26, 1979(id., docket entry 77).A hearing was held on September 18, 1979(id., docket entry 100), and on September 29, 1979, the court ordered that "Plaintiff shall be given full opportunity to examine each and every chart and associated documents that she chooses that are maintained by Defendants and select such charts as she deems appropriate for the purpose of making copies thereof ..."(id., docket entry 102).Dr. Winchell apparently conducted discovery pursuant to that order.

On December 10, 1979, Dr. Winchell filed a "motion for increased discovery"(id., docket entry 113).That motion was opposed (id., docket entries 116 & 117).While that motion was pending, Dr. Winchell called the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Attorney General's Office.

In a memo to file dated February 21, 1980, Andrew Tartaglino, of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, stated that Dr. Winchell had called him on that date indicating that she had "information regarding Medicaid fraud taking place in the Deer Park Medical Group"(Paper 89, Dep. of Winchell, Ex. 1).An appointment was set at that time for Dr. Winchell to meet with the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit personnel on February 27, 1980(id.).

The day after Dr. Winchell's initial phone call to Tartaglino a hearing was held on her motion for increased discovery, and her request was granted in part (Paper 107, Ex. B, docket entry 122).The court order, however, was not issued until February 29, 1980.That order stated that the plaintiff"shall have discovery of all Medicaid vouchers and corresponding plaintiff charts for the period January 1, 1975 to the present; said discovery to consist of plaintiff's inspection and photocopying of those documents shee sic deems relevant, and this inspection and photocopying are to take place on Monday, March 10, 1980 ... and on Wednesday, March 12, 1980"(id., docket entry 124).

Before she conducted that discovery, she met, as previously planned, with the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.In a memo to file dated February 28, 1980, Dale Kelberman, of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, described in detail his interview with Dr. Winchell on February 27, 1980.Mr. Kelberman stated in that memo "Dr. Winchell provided us with 10 or 11 sample vouchers and...