Momou v. SSM Healthcare of Wis.
| Docket Number | 22-1175-JAR-GEB |
| Decision Date | 25 August 2023 |
| Parties | GNAMIEN C. MOMOU, Plaintiff, v. SSM HEALTHCARE OF WISCONSIN, INC. d/b/a SSM HEALTH ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Gnamien Momou, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis brings this action against Defendant SSM Healthcare of Wisconsin, Inc. d/b/a SSM Health St. Mary's Hospital (“SSM”), alleging medical malpractice in his deceased wife's care by the doctors at St. Mary's Hospital after she was diagnosed with cancer. He claims that previous medical malpractice cases he filed in other jurisdictions were incorrectly dismissed and asks this Court to reopen them. He also claims Defendant violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) by not producing to him his wife's medical records, and asks that this Court order the Department of Justice or “the Department of Health Services”[1] to investigate the HIPAA violations. Plaintiff also claims a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation tied to his right to receive his wife's private medical information.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) based on claim preclusion, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. The motion is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. As described more fully below, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's malpractice claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion. The remaining claims are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. As such, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. 26),[2] Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 29) and Motion to Compel (Doc. 34) are moot. Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 24) is denied.
I. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and that it is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[3]In applying this standard, the Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.[4] “There is no genuine [dispute] of material fact unless the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”[5] A fact is “material” if, under the applicable substantive law, it is “essential to the proper disposition of the claim.”[6] A dispute of fact is “genuine” if “there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.”[7]
The moving party initially must show the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.[8] Once the movant has met the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”[9] The nonmoving party may not simply rest upon its pleadings to satisfy its burden.[10] Rather, the nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.”[11] In setting forth these specific facts, the nonmovant must identify the facts “by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein.”[12] A nonmovant “cannot create a genuine issue of material fact with unsupported, conclusory allegations.”[13] A genuine issue of material facts must be supported by “more than a mere scintilla of evidence.”[14]
Finally, summary judgment is not a “disfavored procedural shortcut”; on the contrary, it is an important procedure “designed to ‘secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'”[15] In responding to a motion for summary judgment, a party cannot rest on “ignorance of the facts, on speculation, or on suspicion” to escape summary judgment.[16]
In deciding this motion, the Court is mindful that Plaintiff proceeds pro se; therefore, the Court must construe his pleadings liberally.[17] However, pro se plaintiffs may not rely on conclusory allegations to overcome their burden to establish that a general issue of material fact exists.[18] The Court cannot assume the role of advocate,[19] nor can the Court “supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf.”[20]
Pro se litigants must follow rules of procedure, including local rules.[21] The same day that Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment, it sent Plaintiff a “Notice to Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes a Motion for Summary Judgment,” explaining Plaintiff's burdens under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and District of Kansas Local Rule 56.1 in responding to the motion for summary judgment.[22] Defendant complied with this Court's local rule governing motions for summary judgment by beginning its brief with a section that, in numbered paragraphs, “contains a concise statement of material facts as to which the movant contends no genuine issue exists.”[23] That rule also provides that “[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement of the movant will be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party.”[24] Likewise, under the federal rule, if a party does not address a statement of fact, the Court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.”[25]
In opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiff submitted his own affidavit, and he filed a brief entitled “Reply Brief in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment,” which this Court has considered as a response to Defendant's summary judgment motion.[26] Plaintiff does not address Defendant's statements of uncontroverted fact as required by the local rule in either filing. Therefore, under Rule 56(e)(2) and D. Kan. Rule 56.1(a), the Court will deem undisputed the facts presented in Defendant's summary judgment brief, to the extent they are supported by the record.
The following material facts are deemed uncontroverted and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the nonmoving party.
Plaintiff Gnamien Momou is a resident of the State of Kansas. SSM Healthcare of Wisconsin is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant does business as SSM Health St. Mary's Hospital, located at 700 S. Brooks Street, Madison, Wisconsin, 53715.
Plaintiff's wife was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer in 2016. She was eventually treated at St. Mary's Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Physicians there performed a biopsy that resulted in complications and she was placed in the ICU to recover, where she almost died. His wife's cancer metastasized. She eventually had surgery, but she passed away on March 5, 2020.
Plaintiff maintains that the biopsy results, imaging test results, and other medical assessments were withheld from he and his wife when they asked for that information. Plaintiff asserts that the biopsy caused his wife's cancer to spread, and that that her subsequent surgery was done in error.
Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin on January 8, 2020 against SSM and others, including his health insurer. That court construed Plaintiff's claims as arising under state law-negligence, medical malpractice, breach of contract, and bad faith insurance. The court dismissed these claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was no federal question, and no diversity of citizenship. The court also addressed Plaintiff's reference to several federal statutes in his filings:
The federal court in Wisconsin therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, explaining to Plaintiff that he may be able to pursue his state law claims in state court.
On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed an action in Dane County Wisconsin Circuit Court (“Wisconsin State Action”) against SSM and others. The Dane County Circuit Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the medical malpractice claims because they were untimely under the governing statute of limitations, and, as to SSM, because there was no genuine issue of material fact that [28]The court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims to the extent he asserted them under the following federal statutes: Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HQIA”), the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (“HRRP”), HIPAA, Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (“PSQIA”), and the Affordable Care ...
To continue reading
Request your trial