Simmons v. Henry Ford Health Sys.
| Decision Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:18-cv-14058 |
| Parties | LATAUSHA SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Plaintiff Latausha Simmons sues Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), a HFHS medical provider, and various HFHS security officers, alleging that they violated her constitutional rights and committed common law torts against her. ECF No. 21. The Honorable Matthew F. Leitman referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 9.
Pending before the Court are three motions by defendants: a motion for partial dismissal of time-barred claims, a motion to dismiss Defendant Jennifer Pelzer-Jones, and a motion to dismiss Simmons's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. ECF No. 66; ECF No. 68; ECF No. 71. The Court recommends:
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Simmons's complaint includes claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), defamation, assault, battery, excessive force, sexual assault, sexual and racial discrimination under federal and state law, violation of HIPAA privacy laws, negligence and gross negligence, and violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. ECF No. 21. These claims stem from alleged incidents at an HFHS hospital on August 30, 2016. Id., PageID.95.
Simons alleges that she sought emergency room treatment but that hospital staff “placed male and non-African American female patients before [her], ” and she waited “over 2 hours in pain.” Id. After seeing a doctor and receiving several doses of pain medication intravenously, Simmons's “pain persisted and [she] made repeated requests to be seen and treated by a neurologist during her ER visit.” Id., PageID.96. The doctor “told [Simmons] that she had to go to the neurology department herself to set an appointment, ” and she alleges that his “refusal to have a neurologist examine [her] during her ER visit caused her cervical spine injury, cervical stenosis, bulging and herniated discs in her spine, which were attributing to her right head pain and headaches to go undiagnosed.” Id.
Dr. Jennifer Pelzer-Jones, a psychologist, then visited Simmons in the emergency room. Id., PageID.97. When Simmons repeatedly asked to be seen by a neurologist, Pelzer-Jones allegedly responded “that if you think you are going to go through me to get to a neurologist, you got another thing coming.” Id. Simmons alleges that Pelzer-Jones “intentionally deceived and misled” her and “had accessed and obtained [her] medical information unlawfully under the ruse of her being a medical doctor.” Id., PageID.97-98. She claims that Pelzer-Jones then “through unlawful and unauthorized means gained entry into Defendant HFH computerized patient records system and accessed and obtained [Simmons's] personal and medical health information, in violation of her patient privacy rights and HIPAA privacy laws.” Id., PageID.98.
After Pelzer-Jones allegedly “harass[ed], intimidate[d]…and prevented” Simmons from receiving further medical care, the doctor discharged her and “only instructed her to follow up directly with [the neurology department].” Id., PageID.99. She claims that, despite her requests, the doctor, nurse, and the HFH staff “refused” to “go over the discharge documents which included a prescription for pain, and any blood work performed.” Id. Pelzer-Jones then allegedly “told staff not to assist [Simmons] during her discharge and with her documents, ” and the ER nurse told Simmons “we are calling security to get you out of here.” Id., PageID.99-100. Simmons alleges that defendants refused to allow her to change her clothes in privacy. Id., PageID.100.
HFHS security police officers then allegedly approached Simmons, and she explained that she needed assistance with her discharge documents and was “refused any and all further medical assistance.” Id.
She claims that Pelzer-Jones told the security officers “and all others within ‘earshot'” about her “HIPAA protected medical information” in violation of her rights. Id. The security officers then “escorted her out of the ER department half dressed” and into the ER lobby. Id.
After requesting to speak with HFHS administration, Simmons met with the director of the ER department, was escorted to the elevators for the neurology department, and spoke to the assistant director of neurology. Id., PageID.101-104. HFHS security police officers allegedly appeared and stated that they “were told that [she] had a complaint with security” and they told her “to file a complaint in writing.” Id., PageID.103. The officers allegedly “called her out of the room, ” told staff to deny her assistance, told the medical staff that Simmons “must prove…that she had $125.00 to even continue a conversation with any medical staff in the neurology department, ” and called for more security officers. Id., PageID.103-104.
Simmons then went to the restroom and after “only 10 minutes or less of [her] entering the restroom, ” a female security officer allegedly opened the restroom, stated that “it don't take this long to use the bathroom, ” and looked under the stall. Id., PageID.105. Simmons claims that a few security officers “blocked [her] from further use of the amenities” and that the female security officer “physically grabbed [Simmons] by her breasts” and “between her thighs and began to drag [her] from the restroom.” Id. The security officers then allegedly followed Simmons to the elevator and “badgered” her to sit in a wheelchair. Id., PageID.106. Upon exiting the elevator, the security officers “surrounded” Simmons, “intentionally blocked her path of direction, ” and “refused her access” to the pharmacy to fill her prescription. Id., PageID.106-107.
But Simmons spoke to the pharmacy staff about her prescription anyway, and afterwards, the security officers “refused to allow [her] to go to the…main lobby” to use the phone, “prevented her from walking, ” and “physically violently ‘hit' [her] across the chest.” Id., PageID.107-108. One officer allegedly told another to arrest Simmons, and the officers “snatched [her] walking cane away, grabbed [her] in front of patients, ” and arrested her. Id., PageID.109. They allegedly “pushed [her] head down, ” “forced her to bend over, ” twisted her arms, handcuffed her, used a camera to take photos of her being arrested, and then “paraded” her through the hospital “in front of patients.” Id. Simmons claims that the security guards then “dragged” her from the building and forced her down a flight of stairs, causing her to sustain left foot and ankle injuries. Id., PageID.109-110.
Simmons alleges that the security officers “dragged [her] to a holding cell and forced her inside, ” exposed her breasts by ripping off her shirt, and handcuffed her to a steel bench. Id., PageID.110-111. She claims that they “unlawfully searched and seized [her] property” around “five o'clock in the evening” and left her locked in the cell “without any excess to food, water, toilet facilities or means of contacting anyone, for 7 to 8 hours, until the next day.” Id., PageID.111. Simmons also alleges the security officers released her to Detroit Police after midnight. Id., PageID.112. She complains that she was “falsely imprisoned” by the security officers “upon no charges” and that she sustained several injuries-including “emotional trauma”-from the incident. Id.
Defendants refer to their motions as being for “summary judgment, ” but rather than relying on the rule for summary judgment motions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, defendants cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is governed by the same standards applicable to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d 434, 437 n.5 (6th Cir. 2007) ().
A motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) tests a complaint's legal sufficiency. See Mayer v. Mulod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993). “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.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Iqbal Court explained, “[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. In deciding whether a plaintiff has set forth a “plausible” claim, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations. Id.
Pleadings filed by pro se litigants are entitled to a more liberal reading than would be afforded to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, but such complaints still must plead a plausible claim for relief. Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial