Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. Baker

• Decision Date: 17 September 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:18-2078-MGL
• Citation: 487 F.Supp.3d 443
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC and Julie Edwards, Plaintiffs, v. Joshua BAKER, in his official capacity as Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant.

487 F.Supp.3d 443

PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC and Julie Edwards, Plaintiffs,

v.Joshua BAKER, in his official capacity as Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:18-2078-MGL

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.

Signed September 17, 2020

Kathleen McColl McDaniel, Mary Malissa Burnette, Burnette Shutt and McDaniel PA, Columbia, SC, Alice Clapman, Pro Hac Vice, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Washington, DC, Jennifer R. Sandman, Pro Hac Vice, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Kelly M. Jolley, Ariail Burnside Kirk, Jolley Law Group LLC, Columbia, SC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT ONE OF THE COMPLAINT

MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSAT) and Julie Edwards (Edwards) (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this action against Defendant Joshua Baker (Baker), the director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (SCDHHS), alleging Baker's termination of PPSAT from South Carolina's Medicaid program violates 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23)(A), a provision of the Medicaid Act (the Act), as well as the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to Count One of the complaint. Having carefully considered Plaintiffs’ motion, the response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, it is the judgment of the Court Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of SCDHHS's termination of PPSAT from South Carolina's Medicaid program. SCDHHS is the state agency that administers South Carolina's Medicaid program.

PPSAT operates two health centers in South Carolina: one in Charleston and one in Columbia. Prior to SCDHHS’ termination of PPSAT from South Carolina's Medicaid program, PPSAT treated patients insured through Medicaid at both of its South Carolina locations. PPSAT offers its patients, including but not limited to those insured through Medicaid, a range of family planning, reproductive health, and preventive care services at its Charleston and Columbia health centers.

PPSAT performs abortions at its South Carolina health centers, but South Carolina Medicaid does not cover abortions, except under limited circumstances required by federal law. Edwards is a South Carolina resident insured through Medicaid, who has been treated at the Columbia location of PPSAT.

On August 24, 2017, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster (McMaster) issued Executive Order No. 2017-15, directing all State agencies to "take any and all necessary actions ... to cease providing State or local funds ... to any physician or professional medical practice affiliated with an abortion clinic and operating concurrently with and in the same physical, geographic location or footprint as an abortion clinic."

On July 13, 2018, Governor McMaster issued Executive Order No. 2018-21, instructing SCDHHS to "deem abortion clinics ... and any affiliated physicians or professional medical practices ... enrolled in the Medicaid program as unqualified to provide family planning services and, therefore, to immediately terminate them upon due notice and deny any future such provider enrollment applications for the same." That same day, SCDHHS notified PPSAT it was no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, and SCDHHS was therefore terminating PPSAT's Medicaid enrollment agreements effectively immediately.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this matter on July 27, 2018. Edwards initially brought suit on her own behalf and as the representative of a purported class of South Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries who have obtained or seek to obtain covered healthcare services from PPSAT. As the Court noted above, in Plaintiffs’ complaint, they allege Baker's actions in terminating PPSAT from South Carolina's Medicaid program violate the Act, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. See Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. Baker , 326 F. Supp. 3d 39, 49 (D.S.C. 2018) ( Baker I ). Baker appealed that decision to the Fourth Circuit, which effectively stayed the proceedings before this Court. Thereafter, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Court's decision. See Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. Baker , 941 F.3d 687, 699–700 (4th Cir. 2019) ( Baker II ).

Plaintiffs subsequently filed the instant motion, after which the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Baker's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for a failure to state a claim.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment should be granted under Rule 56 when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if it might "affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. On a motion for summary judgment, all evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc. , 915 F.2d 121, 123–24 (4th Cir. 1990).

"If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may ... grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The adverse party must show more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). If an adverse party completely fails to make an offer of proof concerning an essential element of that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof, then all other facts are necessarily rendered immaterial and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Hence, the granting of summary judgment involves a three-tier analysis.

First, the Court determines whether a genuine issue actually exists so as to necessitate a trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). An issue is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable [trier of fact] could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Second, the Court must ascertain whether that genuine issue pertains to material facts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The substantial law of the case identifies the material facts, that is, those facts that potentially affect the outcome of the suit. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Third, assuming no genuine issue exists as to the material facts, the Court will decide whether the moving party shall prevail solely as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

Summary judgment is "properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’ " Celotex , 477 U.S. at 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). The primary issue is whether the material facts present a substantive disagreement as to require a trial, or whether the facts are so sufficiently one-sided that one party should prevail as a matter of law. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The substantive law of the case identifies which facts are material. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Only disputed facts potentially affecting the outcome of the suit under the substantive law preclude the entry of summary judgment.

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment solely on Count One of the complaint: Edwards's claim that Baker's actions violate the Act by denying PPSAT's patients the right to choose any willing, qualified healthcare provider in the Medicaid program. The Act provides, in relevant part, that "any individual eligible for medical assistance ... may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required ... who undertakes to provide him such services ...."

As an initial matter, the Act's free-choice-of-provider provision creates a private right of enforcement under § 1983. See Baker II , 941 F.3d at 699–700 ("Because South Carolina has not rebutted the presumption that a private right of action exists, we join the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in finding that the free-choice-of-provider provision creates a private right enforceable under § 1983.") (citing cases). Thus, in the Fourth Circuit, Edwards, as a matter of law, may seek to enforce the free-choice-of-provider provision in this § 1983 action.

Turning to Plaintiffs’ claim PPSAT is a medically and professionally qualified provider, there is no dispute as to whether Baker asserts PPSAT afforded less than adequate care to its patients. He does not. See id. at 692 (Baker "did not contend that PPSAT was providing subpar service...