Moscovitch v. Danbury Hosp.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 3:97CV1654(CFD).,Civ. 3:97CV1654(CFD). |
| Parties | Stewart MOSCOVITCH, Administrator of the Estate of Nitai Moscovitch, Deceased and Stewart Moscovitch, Individually, Plaintiff, v. DANBURY HOSPITAL, Vitam Center, Inc., and Physicians Health Services, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Karen E. Koskoff, Joel H. Lichtenstein, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, PC, Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiff.
Matthew Scott Hirsch, Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Back, New Canaan, CT, for Danbury Hosp.
Thomas J. Hagarty, Jr., Halloran & Sage, Hartford, CT, for Vitam Center, Inc.
Theodore J. Tucci, Jean Elizabeth Tomasco, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, CT, for Physicians Health Services, Inc.
The plaintiff, Stewart Moscovitch, individually and as administrator of Nitai Moscovitch's estate, brought this action in the Connecticut Superior Court against the defendants Danbury Hospital, Vitam Center, Inc. ("Vitam") and Physicians Health Services, Inc. ("PHS"). The defendant PHS removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and (b) (1994), asserting that the complaint contains claims arising under federal law to recover benefits due under a health care plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1994 & Supp.II.1996).
The plaintiff and the defendants Danbury Hospital and Vitam filed motions to remand this action to state court, arguing that it does not set forth a federal claim under ERISA and that, as a result, this court does not have original jurisdiction to hear this case. For the reasons set forth below, the motions to remand are GRANTED.
The plaintiff's employer, Silicon Valley Group Lithography, Inc. ("Silicon Valley"), had an employee benefits plan which offered health benefits to eligible employees and their dependants through a group medical plan administered by PHS. The plaintiff through his employment with Silicon Valley, enrolled in the PHS medical plan. The parties agree that the medical plan administered by PHS is an "employee welfare benefit plan" governed by ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(1) and 1003(a). Under the terms of the medical plan, PHS provided health insurance coverage for the plaintiff's adolescent son, Nitai Moscovitch (the "decedent"), who was admitted to Danbury Hospital on July 24, 1995, after twice attempting to commit suicide. The decedent was transferred from Danbury Hospital to Vitam on July 31, 1995, for continued treatment. On the day of his arrival at Vitam, the decedent committed suicide. The plaintiff filed this action in the Connecticut Superior Court on July 18, 1997.
The original complaint in the Connecticut Superior Court contained six counts. The plaintiff, in his capacity as administrator of the decedent's estate, claimed that Danbury Hospital and Vitam were negligent in their care and treatment of the decedent, and also violated Connecticut General Statutes ("Conn.Gen.Stat.") sections 17a-541 and 17a-542 of the Connecticut patients' bill of rights.1 (Complaint, Counts 1, 3). The plaintiff also claimed that the actions of Danbury Hospital and Vitam deprived him of the services, companionship and society of his son. (Complaint, Counts 2, 4).
The claims against PHS, brought by the plaintiff in his capacity as administrator of the decedent's estate, were found in Count Five and Count Six. Count Five alleged that PHS, directly and through its agent Vitam, was negligent and failed to provide the decedent with the appropriate standard of care and treatment in violation of the decedent's rights under Conn.Gen.Stat. sections 17a-541 and 17a-542.
Count Six alleged that PHS is a "provider of health insurance benefits for the plaintiff's decedent" and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Conn. Gen.Stat. section 42-110a et seq. (1995)2, when it deprived the decedent of appropriate mental health insurance benefits because of cost containment considerations. Specifically, Count Six stated that although PHS initially authorized the admission of the decedent to Danbury Hospital for treatment of his depressive disorder and attempted suicide, it terminated the inpatient treatment at Danbury Hospital and required the decedent to transfer to Vitam. Count Six also alleged that Vitam was a facility inappropriate for the decedent because it was only prepared to treat adolescents with substance abuse problems, not persons with the type or magnitude of the problems of the decedent.
On August 15, 1997, PHS filed a notice of removal of the plaintiff's complaint from the Connecticut Superior Court to this court. In its removal petition, PHS asserted that removal was proper because this court has original jurisdiction over the claims against PHS pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994).3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b) (). PHS contended that the complaint arose under federal law because it stated a claim under ERISA § 502(a) by seeking to recover benefits due under an ERISA plan. In support of its removal of the plaintiff's complaint, PHS also relied on the decision in Metropolitan Life v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987).
On September 5, 1997, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action to the Connecticut Superior Court. The plaintiff's motion challenges the removal on the grounds that PHS failed to obtain the consent of its co-defendants before removing the case and also disputes PHS's contention that the complaint raises a federal question. Specifically, the plaintiff states that he is not making a claim to recover benefits, enforce rights or clarify rights to future benefits under an ERISA plan, nor making a claim which relates to the quantity of the benefits the decedent received. The plaintiff contends that his claims against PHS relate solely to the quality of the medical care the decedent received, and are beyond the scope of ERISA.
On September 25, 1997, Danbury Hospital filed its motion to remand this case to the Connecticut Superior Court. Danbury Hospital, like the plaintiff, argues that the removal by PHS is not permitted since the complaint does not raise a federal question under ERISA. Finally, on May 5, 1998, Vitam requested permission to join in the motions to remand of the plaintiff and Danbury Hospital and adopt their arguments.
On the same day the plaintiff filed his motion to remand, he also filed a motion to amend his complaint in this court. The motion was granted and the amended complaint was filed on September 29, 1997.
The amended complaint is brought in five counts. As in the original complaint, Counts One and Three allege that Danbury Hospital and Vitam, respectively, were negligent in their care and treatment of the decedent and violated the decedent's rights under Conn. Gen.Stat. sections 17a-541 and 17a-542. Count One was also revised to allege that PHS and Vitam were the agents of Danbury Hospital and Count Three was revised to allege that PHS and Danbury Hospital were the agents of Vitam. The result of these amendments is that the plaintiff now attributes the alleged negligence of all three defendants to Danbury Hospital and Vitam. Counts Two and Four are identical to the loss of consortium claims made by the plaintiff in the original complaint.
The most significant difference between the original complaint and the amended complaint is the elimination of Count Six, which, as previously stated, charged PHS with a CUTPA violation for denying the decedent health benefits he was due under the plaintiff's medical plan. In addition, Count Five, like Counts One and Three, has been amended to allege that the actions of Danbury Hospital and Vitam are attributable to PHS under the theory they were the actual or apparent servants, agents or employees of PHS.
Count Five also includes twenty-nine new allegations of negligent conduct related to the quality of the care and treatment the decedent received from PHS and its agents.
The motions to remand raise several difficult and complex issues. In deciding whether the plaintiff's original complaint was properly removed, the court must first consider whether PHS was required to obtain the consent of Danbury Hospital and Vitam before removal. If PHS did not need the consent of its co-defendants before removing this case, the court must then examine the "well-pleaded complaint rule" and its interpretation in Metropolitan Life v. Taylor, supra, to determine whether the complaint provides this court with jurisdiction under ERISA. In that analysis, the court must also decide whether it is proper to consider the amended complaint. The court will also address the difference between the jurisdictional mandate of complete preemption under ERISA § 502(a) and the defense of conflict preemption under ERISA § 514(a).
It is undisputed that PHS failed to obtain the consent of its co-defendants Danbury Hospital and Vitam before removing this case.4 The plaintiff argues that without the consent of Danbury Hospital and Vitam, removal was improper. PHS responds that it did not need the consent of its co-defendants to remove this case.
"Although all defendants must ordinarily join in a removal ... this is not required where a case involving a federal claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is removed [by one defendant] and a separate claim [against a different defendant] not independently within federal jurisdiction is involved." Costantini v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 859 F.Supp. 89, 90 (S.D.N.Y.1994). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). In that situation, even though the entire complaint is removed to federal court, only the defendants who have the right to remove the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare
...those cases the defendant is the treating physician and/or his employer or agent. See e.g., Lupo, 28 F.3d at 269; Moscovitch v. Danbury Hosp., 25 F.Supp.2d 74 (D.Conn.1998). Moreover, two district court cases in this circuit have dismissed state-law causes of action against plan administrat......
-
Hall v. LSREF4 Lighthouse Corporate Acquisitions, LLC, 6:16–CV–06461 EAW
...claim is within the scope of § 502(a) it is completely preempted regardless of how he has characterized it.’ " Moscovitch v. Danbury Hosp. , 25 F.Supp.2d 74, 79 (D. Conn. 1998) (quoting Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. , 88 F.3d 1482, 1488 (7th Cir. 1996) ); see also Aetna Health I......
-
Towne v. National Life of Vermont, Inc.
...502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA's civil enforcement provisions, the so-called "complete pre-emption" provision, see, e.g., Moscovitch v. Danbury Hosp., 25 F.Supp.2d 74, 82 (D.Conn.1998), provides that a civil action may be brought by a participant or beneficiary "to recover benefits due to him under ......
-
Bloomfield v. Macshane
...to Local 580 Fund's argument, ERISA § 514(a) does not completely preempt Bloomfield's cause of action. See, e.g., Moscovitch v. Danbury Hosp., 25 F.Supp.2d 74, 82 (D.Conn.1998) ("Conflict preemption under ERISA § 514(a) ... does not recharacterize claims as arising under federal law. Rather......
-
The circuitous journey to the patients' bill of rights: winners and losers.
...apply because there was a claim regarding the quality of benefits and remanding the case to state court); Moscovitch v. Danbury Hosp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 74, 81 (D. Conn. 1998) (holding that where the HMO is making medical treatment decisions rather than benefit qualification decisions, state-l......