Reeves v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-24743-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN |
| Parties | Mary Conyers REEVES, individually as the surviving spouse, and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Cornel Alexander Reeves, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Mariano Ariel Corcilli, The Corcilli Law Firm, Roy D. Wasson, Courthouse Plaza, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
Wendy A. Jacobus, Zakarij Neil Laux, United States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Judgment on the Pleadings (the "Motion") (ECF No. 22), filed June 23, 2020. Plaintiff Mary Conyers Reeves, individually as the surviving spouse, and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Cornel Alexander Reeves ("Plaintiff") filed her response in opposition to the Motion on July 13, 2020. ECF No. 25. And Defendant United States of America ("Defendant") filed its reply brief in support of the Motion on July 20, 2020. ECF No. 27. The Court having reviewed the Motion, the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities finds that the Motion should be granted.
This action stems from the tragic death of Cornel Reeves – a disabled veteran. Mr. Reeves suffered from, inter alia, peripheral neuropathy
, which resulted in being confined to a wheelchair. ECF No. 1, Compl. at ¶ 14. Mr. Reeves was provided a wheelchair by the Veterans Administration (the "VA"). Id. at ¶ 15. Mr. Reeves, due to his disabilities, qualified for the VA's Home Improvements and Structural Alterations ("HISA") grant. Id. at ¶ 16. HISA is a grant which provides medically necessary improvements and structural alterations to Veterans/Servicemembers’ primary residence for the following purposes: (1) allowing entrance to or exit from their homes, (2) use of essential lavatory and sanitary facilities (e.g., roll in showers), (3) allowing accessibility to kitchen or bathroom sinks or counters (e.g., lowering counters/sinks), (4) improving entrance paths or driveways in immediate area of the home to facilitate access to the home through construction of permanent ramping, and (5) improving plumbing or electrical systems made necessary due to installation of home medical equipment. Id. at ¶ 19. HISA provides eligible beneficiaries monetary benefits for improvements and structural alterations to their homes when such improvements and structural alterations are necessary for the continuation of the provision of home health treatment of the beneficiary's disability. Id. at ¶ 20.
On or about January 2013, the VA installed wheelchair ramps (hereinafter the "Ramps" or "Ramp") in the front door and back door of Mr. Reeves’ home in order to allow Mr. Reeves to enter and exit his home. Id. at ¶ 21. The Ramps were installed in connection with the HISA grant. Id. at ¶ 22. Unfortunately, the Ramp the VA installed in the back door: a. Pointed directly at Mr. Reeves’ pool; and b. Was approximately four (4) feet away from the pool. Id. at ¶ 22. On multiple occasions, the Reeves informed the VA that the back door Ramp was too close to the pool, and that if safety railings were not installed to prevent Mr. Reeves’ wheelchair from rolling into the pool, Mr. Reeves would be in danger of rolling into the pool. Id. at ¶ 27. In order to prevent himself from rolling down the Ramp and into the pool, Mr. Reeves requested, on two different occasions, that the VA install safety railings. Id. at ¶ 28. On or about September 24, 2014, Dr. Mazzarella, Mr. Reeves’ primary care provider at the VA hospital, contacted the VA to request that safety railings be installed for "aqua therapy." Id. at ¶ 29. Dr. Mazzarella's request or safety railings to be installed for "aqua therapy" was incorrect as Mr. Reeves needed safety railings to prevent him from rolling/falling into the pool. Id. at ¶ 30. On or about November 18, 2014, the request for safety railings was closed by the VA as it was "not within the scope of HISA." Id. at ¶ 31. On or about May 21, 2015, Dr. Mazzarella requested the safety railings for the second time. Id. at ¶ 33. On or about May 28, 2015, a VA inspector by the name of Vicki Ribera (hereinafter "VA Inspector Ribera") acknowledged the request. Id. at ¶ 34.
On or about August 4, 2015, VA Inspector Ribera went to the Plaintiff's home and inspected the Ramp in question. Id. at ¶ 35. VA Inspector Ribera stated in her inspection that there was "no problem" with the railings. Id. VA Inspector Ribera's statement that there was "no problem" with the safety railings was demonstrably incorrect as there were no safety railings on the Ramp. Id. at ¶ 36.
On or about March 26, 2016, as a result of safety railings not being installed in order to prevent Mr. Reeves from rolling into the pool, Mr. Reeves exited the backdoor in his wheelchair, went down the declining Ramp which was provided for by the VA, and rolled into the pool. Id. at ¶ 37. Upon rolling into the pool, Mr. Reeves was unable to safely exit the pool. Id. at ¶ 38. Later that day, Mrs. Reeves found Mr. Reeves and his wheelchair floating in the pool; Mr. Reeves was unconscious and unresponsive. Id. at ¶ 39. Mr. Reeves remained unresponsive and unconscious for four (4) weeks. Id. at ¶ 40. Mr. Reeves died on April 23, 2016, as a result of the anoxic brain injury
that he suffered due to drowning on March 26, 2016. Id. at ¶ 41.
Based upon the above allegations, Plaintiff asserts a claim for wrongful death based upon Defendant's alleged failure to: a) remedy a dangerous condition; b) install safety railings for the Ramp; c) conduct a reasonable inspection; and d) provide a ramp that would allow Mr. Reeves to safely egress into and out of his home.
This case has a nuanced procedural background. Plaintiff filed a Complaint raising the same claims and allegations as those presented here on June 26, 2019 ("Reeves I"). That case was assigned Case No. 19-cv-22674-Williams/Torres and was pending before Judge Williams. That action, however, was dismissed without prejudice on November 4, 2019 due to the Parties’ failure to file a joint scheduling report. See Case No. 19-cv-22674-Williams/Torres, ECF No. 14. On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to re-open that case; however, Judge Williams denied that motion on November 14, 2019. Id. , ECF Nos. 16 and 17. Then, on November 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action (which is identical to Reeves I) and this new action was assigned to the undersigned. ECF No. 1. For purposes of clarity, this Order shall refer to the present action as Reeves II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint "contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While this standard "does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ ... it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). The standard requires the complaint to "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. , 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ). To provide the "grounds" for "entitle[ment] to relief," the complaint must contain "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citing Papasan v. Allain , 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) ).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Duty Free Ams., Inc. v. Estee Lauder Cos. , 797 F. 3d 1248, 1262 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Murphy v. F.D.I.C. , 208 F.3d 959, 962 (11th Cir. 2000) ). However, this tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
In ConSeal Int'l Inc. v. Neogen Corp. , 19-CV-61242, 2020 WL 4736203, at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2020), Judge Bloom issued an order that thoroughly and succinctly laid out the legal standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Following Judge Bloom's lead, the applicable legal standard here is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial