Ingram v. Tenn. Dep't of Health
| Decision Date | 29 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:17-cv-01565 |
| Parties | ALTON EARL INGRAM, Jr., MD, Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners suspended pro se Plaintiff Dr. Alton Earl Ingram, Jr.'s medical license in 2006 and denied his application to lift the suspension in November 2009. Ingram spent years trying to reinstate his license through administrative and state court proceedings and was finally successful on July 18, 2017. In this federal action, Ingram claims that two former Board members, Defendants Michael Zanolli and Subhi Ali; the Board's former medical director, Defendant Larry Arnold; and counsel for the Tennessee Department of Health, Andrea Huddleston, violated his civil rights in numerous ways during those proceedings. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 17.)
For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the motion to dismiss be GRANTED. Ingram's claims for declaratory relief and state law claims should be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Ingram's Section 1983 claims should be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
The following facts are stated as Ingram pleaded them in his complaint, assumed to be true, and construed in his favor:
(Id. (quoting Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-02-.12).) Ingram voiced his concern to Alexa Whittemore, an attorney with the Tennessee Department of Health, who falsely told him that compliance with the order and the rule would not be a problem. (Id. at PageID# 4-5.) Ingram credited Whittemore's assurance and did not challenge the order. (Id. at PageID# 5.)
The Board's order left Ingram with an active but suspended license that would expire in June 2008. (Id.) Ingram sought to renew his license online before it expired but was unable to doso. (Id.) Ingram raised the issue to the Board's medical director, Dr. Larry Arnold, who falsely informed Ingram that it was the Board's "'longstanding practice' not to allow suspended licenses to be renewed." (Id.) Arnold also told Ingram that reinstatement of his license would be "a sure thing" if he actualized his reinstatement plan and wrongly informed Ingram that there was "no mechanism whereby the plan could be placed before the Board for prior approval . . . ." (Id. at PageID# 6.) Ingram relied on Arnold's statements and maintained proficiency in plastic surgery. (Id.)
In the fall of 2009, Ingram filed an application to reinstate his license. (Id.) The application contained about 100 pages of supporting documents. (Id.) Ingram communicated regularly with the Board's staff about the application, who reviewed the documents and assured him that he had complied with the relevant rules, that he had demonstrated compliance with the suspension order, and that the Board would receive all his documents at its next meeting. (Id.)
The Board considered Ingram's application at its November 2009 meeting, during which the Board's staff stated that they had not provided the Board with Ingram's supporting documents in order to "save trees." (Id. at PageID# 7.) Ingram asked the Board to postpone the hearing so that it would have time to review his full application, but the Board declined. (Id.) During the meeting, Board members Subhi Ali and Michael Zanolli violated its rules and "other statutory and procedural requirements" by attempting to add new terms to the 2006 suspension order, despite repeated warnings from the Board's counsel that the Board was violating Ingram's rights. (Id.) Ali exhibited bias against Ingram during the hearing and voted against lifting the suspension on Ingram's license; Zanolli voted in Ingram's favor. (Id. at PageID# 9, 11.) Ultimately, the Board denied Ingram's application and instructed him to work with Medical Director Arnold to develop a new plan for reinstatement of his license. (Id. at PageID# 7-8.)
Ingram attempted to do so. He spoke with Arnold at least ten times over the next six months. (Id. at PageID# 8.) In one conversation, Ingram stated that he intended to appeal the Board's decision, if that was possible. (Id.) Arnold falsely responded that it was not, explaining that the Board's most recent set of instructions superseded the decision that Ingram wanted to appeal. (Id.) Ingram believed Arnold and did not pursue an appeal. (Id.) Instead of helping Ingram develop a reinstatement plan, Arnold advised Ingram to petition the Board for guidance about how to proceed. (Id.)
Ingram heeded that advice and the Board heard his petition in the summer of 2010. (Id.) The Board refused to clarify its prior suspension order or otherwise indicate how Ingram could reinstate his license. In that meeting, Board Member Ali again exhibited bias towards Ingram, but did not recuse himself from the proceeding. (Id. at PageID# 9.) Eventually, Ali and Mitchell Mutter, another Board member, took over the meeting and told Ingram "that he would receive 'no relief' from the Board." (Id.)
Ingram filed an appeal in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee. (Id.) In 2012, the chancery court found that Ingram's failure to timely appeal the Board's November 2009 denial of his application for reinstatement deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Id.) However, the court noted that Ingram had presented compelling evidence that the Board had violated Tennessee statutes and his right to due process and remanded to the Board "with strict instructions." (Id.)
Ingram's case quickly returned to the Chancery Court. After the initial remand, Ingram filed a request for a hearing before the Board. (Id.) The Board did not set a hearing, and Ingram again appealed. (Id.) Once served with Ingram's appeal, the Office of the Attorney General ofTennessee contacted Ingram, who agreed to dismiss his appeal in exchange for an administrative-law-judge supervised hearing before the Board in the summer of 2012. (Id. at PageID# 9-10.)
The Board scheduled the hearing for March 2013 instead. (Id. at PageID# 10.) Attorney and Board employee Andrea Huddleston "repeatedly and falsely" told Ingram that it was impossible for the Board to convene a contested case panel to conduct the hearing by the summer of 2012. (Id.) When the Board eventually held the promised hearing, it was riddled with procedural violations and misconduct. (Id.) Arnold offered "perjured testimony," which Huddleston suborned. (Id.) Ali admitted that he was biased against Ingram, but instead of following Tennessee law requiring him "to make a statement for the record and to recuse himself from the proceedings," he "stayed in the hearing room, hand-picked [Zanolli] as his replacement in the hearing, and engaged in a lengthy discussion with [Zanolli] off the record during which [Ali] repeatedly gestured at [Ingram] . . . ." (Id. at PageID# 11.) Ingram believes that Ali made defamatory statements about Ingram to Zanolli during that discussion and that Zanolli turned against Ingram to "curry favor" with Ali, who held "a leadership position on the Board" that Zanolli wanted. (Id.) Overall, the hearing lacked the required procedural safeguards. (Id.) For example, one of the three panelists stated that he would not follow the applicable standard of proof, despite an instruction to do so from the administrative law judge. (Id.) Huddleston also "instructed the Board members to end their deliberations, in violation of the Tennessee rules of conduct for administrative hearings and in violation of the Chancery Court's remand order." (Id. at PageID# 11-12.)
Ingram again appealed to the Chancery Court. (Id. at PageID# 12.) The court found that the Board "had acted arbitrarily and/or capriciously" and characterized Huddleston's conduct as "highly irregular and not sanctioned by the rules set out for administrative hearings." (Id.) The court also found that Huddleston had "improperly 'interrupt[ed] the Board during its publicdeliberations' and that her 'continued participation in deliberations was highly inappropriate.'" (Id. (alteration in original).) The court ordered the Board to lift the suspension of Ingram's license or "immediately reconvene" a contested case panel. (Id.)
The Board did neither and instead revoked Ingram's license. (Id.) Huddleston falsely told Ingram, without explanation, that the Board could not immediately reconvene a contested case panel. (Id.) Huddleston also "fraudulently entered into what she represented as 'settlement' discussions" with Ingram, even though she had no authority to do so. (Id. at PageID# 13.) In those discussions, she "unilaterally imposed" new obstacles to the reinstatement of Ingram's license and repeatedly made false statements regarding the procedure for rescheduling a contested...
To continue reading
Request your trial