Lyons v. Ticer-Greene

• Decision Date: 31 March 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

March 31, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

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 in connection with Lyons's worker's compensation claim.^[1] See Compl. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C § 1332), ECF No. 1. He alleges that Defendants knowingly relied on “medical documents belonging to another person . . . to avoid paying an insurance claim” for his serious work-related injury, id. at 1, and that Defendants presented the other person's medical records in a Maryland state-agency proceeding where Lyons's request for permanent total disability benefits was denied see Id. at 3-5. The case is before me by the parties' consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF Nos 10, 14.

The matter is now before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss Lyons's complaint under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 1-2 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)-(3), (6)), ECF No. 4. Defendant Ticer Green asserts that Lyons failed to establish this Virginia federal district court has jurisdiction over her personally, Defs.' Br. in Supp. 1, 8-9 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)), while Defendant PMA asserts that venue is improper in Virginia and that Lyons's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can granted, id. at 9-18 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), (6)). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for resolution. ECF Nos. 4-1, 12, 13, 17, 18.

Having carefully considered Lyons's pro se complaint and the applicable law, however, I am constrained to conclude that Lyons has failed to plead facts necessary to identify each party's citizenship(s) for purposes of determining whether “complete diversity” exists, as required to establish this federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (noting that § 1332(a) grants subject-matter jurisdiction only in cases where “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”); Navy Fed. Credit Union v. LTD Fin. Servs., LP, 972 F.3d 344, 353 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Because of this ‘complete diversity' rule, a federal court must determine and compare the citizenship(s) of all plaintiffs and all defendants before exercising diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a).”); McCrady v. Elliot, No. 5:06cv34, 2006 WL 1701074, at *2 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2006) (“Without knowing the defendants' . . . citizenship, the court cannot determine whether there is complete diversity between the defendants and the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not [carried] the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction.”); Dyer v. Robinson, 853 F.Supp. 169, 172 (D. Md. 1994) (“It is well established, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, that this Court may not exercise diversity jurisdiction if [a] Plaintiff and [a] Defendant are citizens of the same state.”) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)). Accordingly, I must dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013), and deny Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6) as moot, see SunTrust Bank v. Village at Fair Oaks Owner, LLC, 766 F.Supp.2d 686, 689-95 (E.D. Va. 2011). The Clerk will be directed to strike this case from the Court's active docket. Because Lyons may be able to cure this jurisdictional pleading defect, however, the Court will give Lyons 30 days to petition for reinstatement of the action and to file a declaration, which will supplement the jurisdictional allegations in his complaint, that identifies each party's state(s) of citizenship in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

I. Background

This case is about Lyons's efforts to obtain worker's compensation benefits after an on-the-job accident. Lyons alleges that “Defendants altered medical documents belonging to another person, in violation of HIPAA, as well as violating a prior court order, and presented it in a court of law, thus committing perjury, in order to avoid paying an insurance claim.” See Compl. 1; see also Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n 1 (“Plaintiff is asking this Court to rule on Plaintiff's allegation of fraud by the Defendants to influence the [state] courts in their favor.”), ECF No. 13.

In February 2011, Lyons suffered “serious work-related injur[ies], ” Compl. ¶ 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” to Lyons, but who “was younger, of a different race, and lived at a different address” and then, claiming that those records belonged to Lyons, forwarded them “to an Independent Medical Examiner, ” id. ¶¶ 5-6, to provide an expert opinion. See Pl.'s 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 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), ECF No. 13-3, at 3. Lyons alleges that Defendants “altered” the other person's medical records, Compl. ¶ 5, “in order to avoid paying an insurance claim” for Lyons's injuries, see Id. ¶ 6; see also Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n 4-5. Lyons initially was denied benefits “based on” the other person's medical records. Compl. ¶ 7.

The Maryland Worker's Compensation Commission (“the administrative court”) heard Lyons's disability claim in November 2012. See Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9; Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n Ex. 2, at 1. When Lyons raised the medical-records issue, “Defendants admitted to possessing and using the medical records of another individual.” Compl. ¶ 7. Based on Lyons's “evidence” and Defendants' “admission of guilt, ” the administrative court found in Lyons's favor and “awarded retroactive benefits.” Id. When Lyons tried to argue the Defendants committed “fraud” by admitting to using the other person's medical records, however, that “issue of fraud was denied by the [administrative] court.” Id. The administrative court held a “permanency award” hearing in April 2013. Id. ¶ 8. 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 the hearing. Id.; see also Id. ¶ 10 (alleging that Defendants “repeatedly presented medical evidence” and falsely “assert[ed] that it belonged to” Lyons). The administrative court found that Lyons suffered “a Permanent Partial Disability of 16% to the back, left leg, neck, left shoulder and left knee.” Id. Lyons again tried to argue that Defendants committed fraud by using the other person's medical records in connection with his claim, but “the issue of fraud . . . was again denied by the [administrative] court.” Id.

Believing that the administrative court had “refused to address” his fraud argument, Lyons appealed to the Circuit Court of Harford County, Maryland. Id. ¶ 9. The Hon. Yolanda Curtain, presiding circuit court judge, held a two-day hearing in January 2014. Id.; see Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n 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, id., and “affirming the [administrative] court's . . . award” to Lyons, Compl. ¶ 9. More specifically, Judge Curtain found that Defendants' evidence against Lyons's claim “was based on someone else's medical records.” Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n 2. “Neither party appealed this decision.” Compl. ¶ 9.

Lyons's physical condition deteriorated over the next several months, prompting him to seek medical treatment from an “outside” provider. Compl. ¶ 12 (alleging that he sought “outside” treatment “because of the Defendant's continual denial of benefits”). He also “reopened” his worker's compensation case so he could seek “permanent total disability” based on his “worsening” conditions. In May 2016, Lyons presented evidence showing he received medical treatment “consistent” with the work-related injuries he sustained in 2011. Once again, Defendants “presented the medical evidence obtained by fraud”-i.e., the physician's expert report based on the other person's medical records-even though the Circuit Court “dismissed” the probative value of that evidence in May 2014. Id.; see Pl.'s 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. See Id. The administrative court denied Lyons's claim for “worsening of conditions” in June 2016. That August, Lyons “filed a timely issue” with the administrative court asserting that Defendants committed fraud, and violated a court order, by presenting the expert's testimony. See Compl. ¶ 13. He also filed a “Request for Hearing for Referral to [the] Maryland Insurance Fraud Division” in September 2016. Id.

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