Lyons v. Green

• Decision Date: 07 July 2022
• Docket Number: 5:21-cv-00010
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: SAMUEL A. LYONS, Plaintiff v. ILEEN M. TICER GREENE & PMA INDEMNITY INSURANCE, Defendants.

SAMUEL A. LYONS, Plaintiff v. ILEEN M. TICER GREENE & PMA INDEMNITY INSURANCE, Defendants.

No. 5:21-cv-00010

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division

July 7, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joel C. Hoppe, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Samuel A. Lyons, appearing pro se, filed this diversity action alleging that Defendants Ileen M. Ticer Greene and PMA Indemnity Insurance (“PMA”) committed fraud and perjury in connection with Lyons's state workers' compensation case.^[1] Am. Compl., ECF No. 26; see Order of Apr. 20, 2022, at 2, ECF No. 25. The matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(2), (b)(3), and/or (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 24, and Lyons's motion to transfer this action to the District of Maryland ECF No. 29. The motions have been fully briefed, ECF Nos. 28 31, 32, and can be resolved without a hearing, Fed.R.Civ.P 78.

The Court concludes that it does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ticer Greene, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and that Lyons's “fraud” and “perjury” allegations cannot support a claim for damages under Maryland law^[2] Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Assuming Lyons attempted to plead a common-law fraud claim against Defendant PMA, that claim is clearly barred by Virginia's two-year statute of limitations.^[3] Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Additionally, while Lyons failed to show that venue is proper in the Western District of Virginia, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), it is not “in the interest of justice” to transfer Lyons's claims to the District of Maryland, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, Defendant Ticer Greene will be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(2), see Felix v. Dare Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 834 Fed.Appx. 2, 3 (4th Cir. 2021), and Lyons's claims against Defendant PMA will be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), see Forshaw Indus., Inc. v. Insurco, Ltd., 2 F.Supp.3d 772, 783 (W.D. N.C. 2014)

I. Background^[4] This case is about Lyons's efforts to obtain workers' compensation benefits in Maryland. See generally Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-21. In February 2011, Lyons suffered “serious work-related injur[ies],” id. ¶ 5, to his neck, back, left shoulder, and left lower extremity, id. ¶ 8. He alleges that “Defendants acquired the medical records of an another individual . . . who had a similar name,” but “was younger [and] of a different race,” and then, claiming those records belonged to Lyons, forwarded them “to an Independent Medical Examiner,” id. ¶¶ 5-6, to provide an expert opinion about Lyons's condition. See Pl.'s First Br. in Opp'n 2-3. The physician, Dr. Riederman, examined Lyons once in June 2011, but his expert opinion relied “heavily” on medical records belonging to the other person. Id. at 3. Dr. Riederman concluded that Lyons “did not have a permanent partial disability as a result of the [work-related] accident.” Pl.'s First Br. in Opp'n Ex. 2, Mem. Op. & Order 15, Lyons v. Chesapeake Spice Co., No. 12-C-13-1214 (Harford Cnty. Cir. Ct. May 16, 2014) (“Lyons I”), ECF No. 13-3, at 3.^[5] Lyons alleges that Defendants “altered” his medical records, Am. Compl. ¶ 5, “in order to avoid paying an insurance claim” for his workplace injuries, see Id. ¶ 6; see also Pl.'s First Br. in Opp'n 4-5. Lyons was initially denied benefits “based on” the other person's medical records. Am. Compl. ¶ 7.

The Maryland Worker's Compensation Commission (“the WCC” or “the administrative court”) heard Lyons's disability claim in November 2012. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9. When Lyons raised the medical-records issue, “Defendants admitted to possessing and using the medical records of another individual.” Id. ¶ 7. Based on Lyons's “evidence” and Defendants' “admission of guilt,” the WCC found in Lyons's favor and “awarded retroactive benefits.” Id. When Lyons tried to argue that the Defendants committed “fraud” by admitting to using the other person's medical records, however, the “issue of fraud was denied by the [administrative] court.” Id.

The WCC held a “permanency award” hearing in April 2013. Am. Compl. ¶ 8; see Lyons II, 2020 WL 4283965, at *1. Defendants again “admitted to using another individual's medical records” in connection with Lyons's insurance claim, but nonetheless “presented the result of using these records” during this hearing. Am. Compl. ¶ 8.; see also Id. ¶ 10 (alleging that Defendants “repeatedly presented medical evidence” and falsely “assert[ed] that it belonged to” Lyons). The WCC found that Lyons suffered “a Permanent Partial Disability of 16% to the back, left leg, neck, left shoulder and left knee.” Id.; see Pl.'s Second Br. in Opp'n Ex. 9, Award of Comp. ¶ 3 (finding that Lyons suffered “permanent partial disability . . . amounting to 22% industrial loss of use of the body, 16% [of which] is reasonably attributable to the accidental injury (back, left leg, neck, left shoulder, and left knee) and 6% [of which] is due to pre-existing conditions,” and ordering Defendant PMA to pay Lyons $314 a week “beginning December 22, 2011, for a period of 80 weeks” (cleaned up)) (Md. Workers' Comp. Comm'n) (Apr. 11, 2013), ECF No. 30-1, at 2. Lyons tried to argue that Defendants committed fraud by using the other person's medical records, but “the issue of fraud . . . was again denied by the [administrative] court.” Am. Compl. ¶ 10.

Believing that the WCC had “refused to address” his fraud argument, Lyons appealed to the Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland. Am. Compl. ¶ 9; see Lyons II, 2020 WL 4283965, at *2 (“Lyons appealed to the Circuit Court for Harford County, arguing that the Commission had incorrectly relied on Chesapeake Spice's medical expert, Dr. Riederman, who reviewed records for a different Samuel Lyons when making his evaluation.”). The Hon. Yolanda Curtain held a two-day hearing in January 2014. Id.; see Pl.'s First Br. in Opp'n 2; Lyons I, Mem. Op. & Order 1, ECF No. 13-3, at 2. That May, Judge Curtain issued an order “dismissing” the Defendants' evidence, “including expert testimony from their physician” who had reviewed the other person's medical records, and “affirming the [administrative] court's . . . award” to Lyons. Am. Compl. ¶ 9; accord Lyons I, Mem. Op. & Order 16 (“[B]ecause the Employer relied solely on Dr. Riederman's testimony and report to support its appeal, and because this Court does not credit that testimony, the Employer failed to meet its burden to overcome the presumptive correctness of the Commission's award.”), ECF No. 13-3, at 4.

More specifically, Judge Curtain found that Defendants' evidence against Lyons's workers' compensation claim “was based on someone else's medical records.” Pl.'s First Br. in Opp'n 2; see Lyons I, Mem. Op. & Order 16 (“This Court finds that Dr. Riederman's opinion lacks credibility and persuasiveness because it was influenced by incorrect medical information. The influence is apparent because in Dr. Riederman's first report he was clearly persuaded by the incorrect Samuel Lyons'[s] medical reports, and he held that same opinion in all of his subsequent reports. Once alerted to the incorrect report, he held on to the same opinion without explaining why his opinion remained unchanged.”), ECF No. 13-3, at 4. “Although finding that Dr. Riederman was not credible,” Judge Curtain concluded “that the Commission's decision was not affected by Dr. Riederman's report, and that there was ‘a factual basis for the Commission to reach a lower [disability] rating that the rating Mr. Lyons'[s] expert reached.'” Lyons II, 2020 WL 4283965, at *2 (brackets omitted). “Neither party appealed this decision.” Am. Compl. ¶ 9.

Lyons's physical condition deteriorated over the next several months, prompting him to seek medical treatment from an “outside” provider. Am. Compl. ¶ 12 (alleging that he sought “outside” treatment “because of the Defendant's continual denial of benefits”). He also “reopened” his workers' compensation case so he could seek “permanent total disability” based on his “worsening” conditions. Id. In May 2016, Lyons presented evidence to the WCC showing that he received medical treatment “consistent” with the work-related injuries he sustained in February 2011. See Id. Once again, Defendants “presented the medical evidence obtained by fraud”-i.e., Dr. Riederman's report based on the other Samuel Lyons's medical records-even though Judge Curtain “dismissed” that report in May 2014. See id.; Pl.'s First Br. in Opp'n 3. This time, however, the “administrative court accepted and considered the [Defendants'] evidence” to be a “genuine and factual” representation of Lyons's condition. Am. Compl. ¶ 12. The WCC denied his claim for “worsening of conditions” in June 2016. Id.; see Lyons II, 2020 WL 4283965, at *3 (“The Commission [found] that the claimant failed to present credible medical evidence that [his] current conditions are causally related to the accident.”). That August, Lyons “filed a timely [I]ssue” with the WCC asserting that Defendants committed “fraud,” and violated a prior court order, by presenting Dr. Riederman's testimony. Am. Compl. ¶ 13; Pl's First Br. in Opp'n Ex. 6, Workers' Comp. Comm'n Issues 1 (“Insurer has placed into evidence before the WCC, on 5/20/16, medical records/reports of Dr. Riederman (IME) previously removed by the Circuit Court of Maryland on 1/7/14.”) (Aug. 22, 2016), ECF No. 13-7, at 2. He also filed a “Request for Hearing for Referral to [the] Maryland Insurance Fraud Division” in September 2016. Am. Compl. ¶ 13; Pl.'s First Br. in Opp'n Ex. 7, ECF No. 13-8.

That October, the WCC granted Lyons's request for rehearing. Am. Compl. ¶ 14. Both parties presented their cases, but “the administrative court refused to allow [Lyons] to litigate the issues” that he believed were “before the...