Luedecke v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1582-B
| Decision Date | 05 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1582-B |
| Parties | ROBERT LUEDECKE, Plaintiff, v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORP.; TENET HEALTHCARE LTD.; and VHS SAN ANTONIO PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS d/b/a BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEMS d/b/a ST. LUKE'S BAPTIST HOSPITAL d/b/a BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a MISSION TRAIL BAPTIST HOSPITAL d/b/a NORTHEAST BAPTIST HOSPITAL d/b/a NORTH CENTRAL BAPTIST HOSPITAL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement (doc. 9) filed by Defendant VHS San Antonio Partners, L.L.C.,1 as well as an Amended Motion to Dismiss, Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement (doc. 12) filed by Defendants Tenet Healthcare Corporation and Tenet Healthcare Ltd. Defendants seek the dismissal of Plaintiff Robert Luedecke's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553. Forthe reasons stated below, Defendants' Motions are GRANTED.
This case is based on an employee's claim that his employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to grant his request for accommodation and by retaliating against him. Plaintiff Robert Luedecke is an anesthesiologist who became part of the medical staff at the San Antonio area hospitals of Defendant VHS San Antonio Partners, L.L.C. ("VHS") and Defendants Tenet Healthcare Corporation and Tenet Healthcare Ltd. ("Tenet")3 in or around 1990. Doc. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 3, 13. Plaintiff performed anesthesia services when requested to do so by surgeons at Defendants' hospitals. Id. He was also required to respond to certain emergency room calls. Id. Beginning in December 2010, Plaintiff began requesting that he be removed from the emergency room on-call list due to his "chronic pain related to disc disease of the neck." Id. ¶¶ 11, 14. In support of his December 2010 request, Plaintiff asserted that he was burdened by "restrictions and medications prescribed by his treating physician." Id. ¶ 14. His request for accommodation was denied, and as a result, Plaintiff alleges that he "was forced to pay other doctors to cover his emergency room on-call schedule." Id.4
Plaintiff avers that, shortly thereafter, Defendants began "threatening to force [Plaintiff] toundergo a medical examination of their choosing because they believed he was exaggerating his condition." Id. ¶ 15. In March 2011, Defendants requested a letter from Plaintiff's treating doctor regarding the restrictions and medications he was prescribed, although Plaintiff alleges he had offered this information to Defendants on multiple occasions. Id. ¶ 16. On March 29, 2011, Plaintiff's treating doctor provided Defendants with a letter stating that the medications Plaintiff was prescribed would not prevent him from working. Id. Plaintiff's treating doctor further stated that "because of [Plaintiff's] impairments . . . I trust this information is sufficient to forgive [Plaintiff's] participation in night call responsibilities." Id. Despite this letter, Plaintiff's request for an accommodation and removal from the emergency room on-call list was again denied. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that in September 2011, he provided Defendants with an additional letter from his physical medicine and rehabilitation doctor concerning his condition. Id. ¶ 17. The letter stated in part: "With the nature of on call work being inherently unpredictable, it is my opinion that [Plaintiff] is at risk of damaging his own health by performing such work." Id. Following this letter, Plaintiff's request for an accommodation was denied once again. Id.
Plaintiff further contends that on April 13, 2012, Defendants ordered that he undergo an examination by a doctor of their choosing. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff requested to examine the policy requiring him to do so. Id. In response, Defendants agreed to allow Plaintiff's treating doctor to perform the examination, which Plaintiff underwent on May 22, 2012. Id.5
In June 2012, Defendants' Medical Board considered Plaintiff's request to be removed fromthe emergency room on-call list. See id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff asserts that he was not permitted to attend the Board's meeting and present arguments in support of his claim for accommodation. Id. ¶ 21. On June 28, 2012, Dr. Vernon Theis, as Chair of the Medical Board, wrote a letter to Plaintiff indicating that "[t]he [Medical Board] unanimously agreed that according to the evaluation (from your doctor) you are fit to practice and therefore able to make Anesthesia ER call . . . Please note that the call responsibilities at SLBH6 are approximately 3 to 4 times per year." Id. ¶ 20. Following this letter, Plaintiff alleges that he "was placed back on Defendants' call schedule at a frequency of about 6 times per year." Id.7 Plaintiff believes that Dr. Theis, along with other members of the Board, intentionally withheld the doctors' notes Plaintiff had provided Defendants. Id. ¶ 21.
A second Medical Board meeting was conducted on September 25, 2012, which Plaintiff was allowed to attend in order to present the reasons why he was unable to perform his emergency room on-call duties. Id. ¶ 22. At this meeting, Plaintiff again offered the September 2011 doctor's letter that he had previously provided to Defendants. Id. Following this meeting, in a letter dated October 12, 2012, Dr. Theis informed Plaintiff that "the [Medical Board] affirmed their prior recommendation that you be required to take Anesthesia ER Call in accordance with the Medical Staff Bylaws." Id.
Plaintiff then asserts that on January 1, 2013, Baptist Health Systems, one of the entities under which VHS operates, entered into a contract with a new anesthesia services provider. Id. ¶23. This new provider would perform the anesthesia services at all but one of the hospitals in the Baptist Health System. Id. Due to this development, Plaintiff's anesthesia services were now only required at this remaining Baptist Health System hospital—St. Luke's Hospital. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a substantial wage loss as a result. Id. Plaintiff maintains that on January 17, 2013, Dr. Theis informed him that the contract with the new anesthesia services provider would soon also include the remaining hospital, St. Luke's, and that therefore, Plaintiff would no longer need to seek to be removed from that hospital's on-call list. Id. ¶ 24.
On May 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"), alleging that Defendants had discriminated against him based on his disability and retaliated against him due to his request for accommodation. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants had taken "adverse action against [him]." Id. He then received a "Notice of Right to Sue" from the EEOC, dated January 30, 2014, which allowed him to institute a civil action within 90 days. Id.
Plaintiff thus filed his Complaint with this Court on April 30, 2014, alleging that Defendants violated the ADA by discriminating and retaliating against him. See Compl. He maintains that he suffers from a disability within the meaning of the ADA, "as his 'chronic pain related to disc disease of the neck' substantially limits his major life activities." Id. ¶ 11. He further asserts that Defendants had knowledge of his condition and "regarded the same if not as an actual disability then as a perceived disability." Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff claims that Defendants followed a policy and practice of discrimination against him on account of his disability. Id. ¶ 26. These discriminatory practices included the following: (a) failing to make reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff's disability; (b) discriminating against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; and (c)retaliating against Plaintiff in violation of the ADA. Id. He further maintains Defendants acted willfully and with malice. Id. ¶ 26a.8
Plaintiff claims that he has no adequate remedy at law to correct the practices described, and he avers that he is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendants' policies, practices, customs, and usage. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiff thus requests past and future compensatory damages for the mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life that he has experienced or will experience in the future. Id. ¶¶ 28, 32. He also seeks statutory damages, past and future wages, compensation for his monetary losses, liquidated damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs, and interest. Id. ¶¶ 26a, 31.
Defendants filed their respective Motions to Dismiss, Alternative Motions for a More Definite Statement on July 20, 2014, arguing that Plaintiff fails to state ADA claims based on either (1) the denial of his request for accommodation or (2) the alleged retaliation he experienced. See docs. 9, VHS Mot. to Dismiss; 12, Tenet Mot. to Dismiss. Specifically, they argue that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts to support his allegation that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Id. They further maintain that no claim for retaliation is stated, and that Plaintiff's claims based on events prior to July 7, 2012 are barred because the EEOC charge was not filed within the required period of time following the occurrence of the alleged events. Id. Plaintiff filed a single Response (doc. 18) to both Motions on July 30, 2014, and Defendants submitted their respective Replies (docs. 21, 22) on August 13, 2014. The Motions are now ripe for the Court's review.
Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)....
To continue reading
Request your trial