Langbehn v. Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade, Case No. 08-21813-CIV.

Decision Date02 October 2009
Docket NumberCase No. 08-21813-CIV.
Citation661 F.Supp.2d 1326
PartiesJanice LANGBEHN, individually and as Representative of the Estate of Lisa Marie Pond, Danielle Langbehn-Pond, Katelyn Langbehn-Pond, and David Langbehn-Pond, Plaintiffs v. The PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, d/b/a Jackson Memorial Hospital, Garnett Frederick, Dr. Alois Zauner, and Dr. Carlos Alberto Cruz, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Donald John Hayden, Jorge David Guttman, Joseph Mamounas, Baker & McKenzie, Miami, FL, Elizabeth L. Littrell, Gregory R. Nevins, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew Benjamin Boese, Dennis A. Kerbel, Erica Sunny Shultz Zaron, Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS1

ADALBERTO JORDAN, District Judge.

Currently pending is the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and for the reasons which follow, that motion [D.E. 31] is GRANTED.

I. THE ALLEGATIONS

The amended complaint alleges the following facts.2

Janice Langbehn and Lisa Marie Pond—residents and citizens of Washington—were committed life partners since 1987 and the parents of four jointly adopted children with special needs, including three minors (Danielle, Katie, and David). On February 17, 2007, the Langbehn-Pond family arrived in Miami to depart on a cruise. They never left on the cruise, however, because on the following day, Ms. Pond—then 39—collapsed aboard the cruise ship while it was docked at the Port of Miami.

An ambulance transported Ms. Pond to the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital.3 Ms. Pond was admitted at Ryder at around 3:30 p.m., and Ms. Langbehn, Danielle, Katie, and David arrived at approximately the same time or shortly thereafter. Doctors Alois Zauner and Carlos Alberto Cruz were the attending physicians at Ryder responsible for Ms. Pond's care and treatment, and for decisions as to access and information given to the Langbehn-Pond family about Ms. Pond's situation. On information and belief, the plaintiffs allege that Ms. Pond was semi-conscious and responsive at the time of her arrival at Ryder and for several hours afterwards.

Ms. Langbehn informed the admitting clerk at Ryder that she was Ms. Pond's life partner and offered to provide relevant medical history and information. She also indicated that was the family member who was to receive information about Ms. Pond's condition, explained that the children were their jointly adopted children, and emphasized her need to be with Ms. Pond as soon as possible. The admitting clerk, who controlled family members' acess to emergency personnel attending patients at Ryder, rejected Ms. Langbehn's offer to provide information about Ms. Pond. She also refused to provide Ms. Langbehn with information about Ms. Pond's condition, and over the next eight hours, denied the family the ability to see or be with Ms. Pond.

Subsequently, Garnett Frederick, a Jackson social worker, spoke to Ms. Langbehn. He told Ms. Langbehn that she should not expect to be provided any information about or access to Ms. Pond because they were in an "anti-gay city and state." Mr. Frederick also told Ms. Langbehn that, because it was a holiday weekend, she would not be able to get before a court in order to secure the legal papers necessary for her to get information about or access to Ms. Pond.

At 4:15 p.m., doctors at Ryder determined that Ms. Pond had experienced an aneurysm.4 At approximately the same time, Ryder personnel received, by fax, a copy of Ms. Pond's executed power of attorney, which allowed Ms. Langbehn to act as Ms. Pond's guardian and make medical decisions in case of incapacity. That document was then placed in Ms. Pond's patient file. Despite receipt of the power of attorney, no one at Ryder, including the defendants, acknowledged the legal effect of the document, or allowed Ms. Langbehn to have information about, or access to, Ms. Pond. The plaintiffs allege that Doctors Zauner and Cruz knew, or should have known, about the executed power of attorney.

Jackson personnel (it is unclear who) did not allow Ms. Langbehn to sign admission or consent forms for Ms. Pond. They did, however, allow Ms. Pond's father (at what time is unclear) to sign authorization forms for some of Ms. Pond's medical treatment. Jackson personnel also did not allow Ms. Langbehn to receive Ms. Pond's medical records.

At 4:30 p.m., Ms. Pond was given some medicine. From 4:15 to 5:20 p.m., no one gave Ms. Langbehn any information about Ms. Pond or sought her consent for any medical treatment. At around 5:20 p.m., medical personnel placed a central line and a "ventria," as well as a brain monitor, on Ms. Pond during a surgical procedure. Ms. Langbehn, who spoke to one of the attending physicians at that time, consented to the placement of a brain monitor.

At approximately 6:10 p.m., two Ryder doctors (the complaint is silent as to which ones) spoke to Ms. Langbehn about Ms. Pond's condition and surgical options. Ms Langbehn insisted on calling Ms. Pond's parents, who were placed on speaker phone with the doctors. During this conversation the doctors learned that Ms. Pond's condition had deteriorated and suggested that surgery was not advisable. Ms. Langbehn asked to see Ms. Pond and told the doctors that Ms. Pond was an organ donor. She repeated this request on behalf of herself and the children 10 minutes later. Ms. Langbehn was told (it is unclear by whom) that they would be able to see Ms. Pond as soon as she was "cleaned up," and a doctor (again it is unclear which one) admitted that there were no medical or other legitimate reasons to prevent the family from being with Ms. Pond. Notwithstanding these representations, Ms. Langbehn and the children were not taken to the restricted area where Ms. Pond was located.

About 40 minutes later, at 6:50 p.m., a priest escorted Ms. Langbehn into the trauma area, where Ms. Pond lay alone. The priest administered last rites, with Ms. Langbehn present. Ms. Langbehn was escorted out of the trauma area at 6:55 p.m., once the last rites had been administered. During this time, other families, including those with minor children, were given information by the clerk and were escorted in and out of the restricted area to see their relatives. Throughout the evening, Ms. Pond was placed in restraints for her own protection and because no family members were allowed to provide care and supervision.

Every 20 minutes or so, Ms. Langbehn requested permission to see Ms. Pond. The clerk, as she had done before, denied the requests and provided no updates on Ms. Pond's condition. At 10:30 p.m., Ms. Pond was transferred from Ryder to Jackson's Neurosurgery Intensive Care Unit. The clerk failed to tell Ms. Langbehn that Ms. Pond had been transferred.

Ms. Pond's sister and brother-in-law arrived from Jacksonville at around 11:30 p.m. Ryder personnel recognized them as Ms. Pond's relatives, informed them of the transfer, and gave them Ms. Pond's new room number. Ms. Langbehn and her children were able to visit with Ms. Pond at this time. The plaintiffs do not allege that they were denied access to, or visitation with, Ms. Pond after her transfer and before her death.

Soon after Ms. Pond's death, Jackson personnel gave Ms. Pond's parents copies of their daughter's confidential medical records, even though they had not requested them and even though neither was listed as Ms. Pond's healthcare surrogate. Ms. Langbehn was not given Ms. Pond's medical records even though she requested them.

Jackson's policies, as stated on the hospital's public website and elsewhere, promise an environment that preserves dignity; the right to an environment free from mental, sexual, and verbal abuse; recognition of powers of attorney and designations of health care surrogates; crisis and bereavement counseling 24 hours a day at Ryder; social workers to provide emotional support for friends and family and facilitate family involvement with the entire treatment team; and health care with kindness and respect for patients' diverse backgrounds and rights to dignity. On information and belief, the plaintiffs allege that Jackson has promulgated rules prescribing reasonable visitation policies, and that Jackson has a "liberal visitation policy" which allows visitors "as soon as it is humanly possible and appropriate."

The plaintiffs allege that Ms. Langbehn became physically ill and suffered from stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting at various times on February 18, 2007, due to her inability to comfort Ms. Pond while she was dying. The plaintiffs also allege that, as result of the defendants' actions, Ms. Langbehn and the children (Danielle, Katie, and David) suffered physical injuries, including the exacerbation of Ms. Langbehn's multiple sclerosis symptoms (which required hospitalization), severe psychological distress, trauma, nausea, insomnia, nightmares, severe depression, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

III. DISCUSSION

The plaintiffs—Ms. Langbehn, Danielle, Katie, David, and Ms. Pond's Estate—have pled 8 claims under Florida law.5 All of those claims arise out of their alleged improper treatment by personnel at Ryder and Jackson on February 18, 2007. Significantly, the plaintiffs do not allege that Ms. Pond's medical care was inadequate. Nor do they contend that such treatment was rendered without appropriate consent or informed consent, or that Ms. Langbehn would have done anything else differently concerning Ms. Pond's medical care had she been given more updates and information on her status.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for psychological trauma and/or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Mukamal v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. (In re Palm Beach Fin. Partners, L.P.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
    • August 23, 2013
    ...that ‘abstract notions of sound public policy are not proper judicial considerations' in determining whether a duty exists.” 661 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1335 (S.D.Fla.2009) (quoting Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035, 1041 n.9 (Fla.2009) ). The Court agrees and will not impose a duty on GECC based solel......
  • Diaz v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 19, 2019
    ...the Plaintiff must state a physical manifestation of injuries stemming from Rosen's statements. Langbehn v. Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade County , 661 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Plaintiff fails to do so and therefore, count 5 fails to state a claim even if the single action ......
  • Smolnikar v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • May 10, 2011
    ...party has failed to set forth any facts that go to an essential element of the claim.”); Langbehn v. Public Health Trust of Miami–Dade County, 661 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1336–1337 (S.D.Fla.2009) (“Usually the question of a breach [of duty in a negligence claim] is for the trier of fact ..., but wh......
  • Zarrella v. Pac. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • November 10, 2010
    ...a private cause of action. Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So.2d 983, 985 (Fla.1994): see also Langbehn v. Pub. Health Trust of Miami–Dade Cnty., 661 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1343 n. 8 (S.D.Fla.2009); Pantages v. Cardinal Health 200, Inc., 5:08–cv–116–Oc–10GRJ, 2009 WL 2244539, at *3 (M.D.Fla. July 27......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Marriage & Divorce
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIII-2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...that a woman claiming to be the victim’s “de facto spouse” was not entitled to See Langbehn v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1335–38 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (explaining that persons who are “legally able to make medical decisions on [behalf of a patient include] . . . ......
  • Marriage and divorce
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-2, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...that a woman claiming to be the victim’s “de facto spouse” was not entitled to See Langbehn v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1335–38 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (explaining that persons who are “legally able to make medical decisions on [behalf of a patient include] . . . ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT