Tedder v. CareSouth Carolina, Inc.
| Docket Number | 4:20-707-SAL-KDW |
| Decision Date | 15 December 2021 |
| Parties | Tona Tedder, Plaintiff, v. CareSouth Carolina, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tona Tedder (“Plaintiff” or “Tedder”) filed this action against her former employer, Defendant CareSouth Carolina, Inc. (“CareSouth” or “Defendant”), alleging CareSouth violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., as amended. She also brings state-law-based claims of defamation, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, and workers' compensation retaliation in violation of S.C Code Ann. § 41-1-80. Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. Defendant seeks summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 37. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition, ECF No. 44, to which Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. 46. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a report and recommendation (“R&R”) regarding Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the applicable law, the undersigned recommends Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 37, be granted as to the federal causes of action and that the case be remanded for consideration of the state-law-based causes of action.
A. Overview of CareSouth and Plaintiff's employment there
CareSouth, a not-for-profit community health clinic serving five counties in the Pee Dee Region of South Carolina, is charged with serving the medically underserved, poor populations in rural underserved areas. Dep. of CareSouth Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Ann Lewis 15-16, ECF No. 37-3. CareSouth provides healthcare services through its licensed healthcare professionals, all of whom were supervised at all relevant times by Chief Medical Officer (“CMO”) Stephen Smith, M.D. Smith Dep. 15, ECF No. 37-4.
Plaintiff was employed by CareSouth as a Family Nurse Practitioner (“FNP” or “NP”) from January 1, 2008 until January 4, 2019. CareSouth 30(b)(6) Dep. 8, ECF No. 37-6. Plaintiff and Jennifer Lynch were the two family nurse practitioners working in Suite B of the Hartsville Medical Center from 2016 to January 4, 2019. Smith Dep. 56. Family nurse practitioners provide primary care to patients. Lewis Dep. 22, ECF No. 44-13. As explained by Plaintiff, family nurse practitioners take care of patients, prescribe medication, order lab and other tests, review and interpret the results and take care of patients' medical needs. Pl. Dep. 45, ECF No. 37-2. Up to the time of her termination, Plaintiff was performing all the routine patient care responsibilities and was meeting the patient care requirements. CareSouth 30(b)(6) Dep. 9-10, ECF No. 44-15. As discussed more fully below, CareSouth terminated Plaintiff for “bullying and not upholding the service standards of the organization.” Id. at 10.
B. Environmental incident and impact on Plaintiff's work schedule
On February 5, 2015, a waterline burst in the men's room of CareSouth's Hartsville Medical Center building. CareSouth 30(b)(6) Dep. 15. A majority of the building was flooded. Dep. of Denise Ellis, CareSouth Human Resources (“HR”) Representative/Chief Personnel Officer (“CPO”), 26, ECF No. 37-5. A cleaning company was contracted to completely remedy the damage, including cleaning or replacing flooring, wood framing, sheet rock, and the like. Lewis Dep. 26-27. In the following year several employees at the Hartsville Medical Center began experiencing breathing issues. Ellis Dep. 28. An industrial hygiene company tested the building, revealing above-normal levels of mold. Id. at 34. “[A]bout a year later, ” CareSouth discovered mold had grown in the building as a result of the flooding. Lewis Dep. 26; See Ellis Dep. 26-27, 34 (). A company took samples and determined mold, with aspergillus being the most common, was in the building. Lewis Dep. 26. Large-scale remediation, including replacement of flooring, walls, ceilings, and HVAC system, took place. Id. at 26-27. Subsequent testing showed that as a result of the remediation efforts, the air quality was better inside the building than outside. Ellis Dep. 34.
As a result of the mold problem, eight employees, including Plaintiff, made allegations of illness arising from the flood. Def. Discovery Resps. 8, ECF No. 37-5 (ex. 17 to Ellis Dep.); Ellis Dep. 58-59. Of those employees, four remained employed by CareSouth as of the time the discovery responses were provided (May 28, 2020), one retired in May 2017, and two others voluntarily resigned in September 2016 and March 2017. Def. Discovery Resps. 8.[2]
In June 2016 Plaintiff verbally reported to Ellis that she (Plaintiff) was having some issues with “what seemed to be like a sinus infection, congestion type thing that just was not getting better.” Ellis Dep. 29. In a July 30, 2016 email to Ellis with the subject “Health and Work Environment, ” Plaintiff indicated she needed to have a discussion with Ellis, indicating she believed she was “having some type of reaction with [her] lungs to [her] work environment, ” noting she had been having sinus, cough, and allergy symptoms since May 2016. Pl. July 30, 2016 email to Ellis, ECF No. 37-2 at 87. Plaintiff noted she had been treated for pneumonia and had had a fungal culture done that came back positive. Plaintiff indicated she would be seeing an allergist and a pulmonologist and would keep CareSouth apprised of findings. Id. In her deposition, Plaintiff agreed that this is how she first put CareSouth on notice that she had filed a workers' compensation claim. Pl. Dep. 62. In her capacity as CareSouth's Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Ellis indicated she did not recall CareSouth's exact response to that email. CareSouth 30(b)(6) Dep. 16.
Plaintiff testified that as of August 1, 2016 she was out of work because of the respiratory issue. Pl. Dep. 65. In September 2016 Plaintiff's pulmonologist told her to try going back to work for two-hour shifts. She did so for two days but physically could not do so. Pl. Dep. 65-66. Other than those two attempts to work in-office in September 2016, Plaintiff did not work at a CareSouth facility from July 30, 2016 through March 6, 2017. Pl. Dep. 70-71. Rather, at times Plaintiff worked remotely in small increments. Id. at 69-70. CareSouth and Plaintiff entered a written understanding that deferred to Plaintiff's physician regarding her work restrictions. Nov. 18, 2016 Memorandum, “Working While on Medical Leave, ” ECF No. 37-2 at 88. CareSouth continued to provide Plaintiff with full-time pay during the whole period. Pl. Dep. 67-68.
On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “CareSouth Carolina, Inc. Occurrence Report, ” in which she noted she had emailed HR about concerns regarding an environmental hazard and her symptoms. She noted she had seen a pulmonologist and had testing done. Occurrence Report, ECF No. 44-16 at 3. Plaintiff indicated she had been out of work from August 2, 2016 until September 12, 2016. Id. The Report included an occurrence-date of August 1, 2016. Id.[3]
In an October 1, 2016 email, CMO Dr. Smith advised CEO Lewis, CPO Ellis, and Peggy Foster that Plaintiff had had a difficult week with some shortness-of-breath. Oct. 1, 2016 email, ECF No. 37-5 at 31. Dr. Smith noted Plaintiff's bronchial culture had indicated heavy growth, that she had been placed on new medications, and that she would be “drop[ping] down to 3 half-days a week for a while.” Id. Dr. Smith noted that, Id.
In October 2016 Plaintiff hired an attorney because of problems associated with her medical bills. Pl. Dep. 67. Ellis explained there had been a dispute between two carriers as to which one was responsible for the medical bills. Ellis Dep. 36. CareSouth became aware of the fact Plaintiff had an attorney shortly thereafter as a result of receiving a subpoena for medical records. Nov. 15, 2016 email from Ellis to Lewis and Smith, ECF No. 37-5 at 33. In response to that email chain Lewis stated that Plaintiff's hiring of an attorney had “just escalated the issues.” Id. at 35.
During the time Plaintiff was not working in the office most of her patients were seen by FNP Lynch. Smith Dep. 56-57; Lynch Dep. 51, ECF No. 44-21. On November 4, 2016, Lynch went with Plaintiff when Plaintiff's pulmonologist was to perform a bronchoscopy on Plaintiff. Lynch Dep. 62-64. During the procedure Plaintiff's oxygen saturation went very low, and the procedure was not completed. Id. After that, Lynch indicated Plaintiff was sent to see Dr. Cox, a specialist, for additional tests, including CT scans. Lynch Dep. 64. A November 10, 2016 email from Dr. Smith to Ellis indicated that Plaintiff's “bronch did not go well, her ox[y]gen level tanked.” Nov. 10, 2016 email, ECF No. 37-5 at 32.
In a December 6, 2016 letter, Plaintiff's pulmonologist indicated Plaintiff ought to be able to work off-site at a reduced schedule. Dr. Seif requested that the work place be re-evaluated after the environmental cleaning process was complete. Dec. 6, 2016 Seif Letter, ECF No. 44-17 at 13. Dr. Seif indicated that, after re-evaluating the work place, if Plaintiff's symptoms improved with treatment and she was cleared by Dr. Chavez (Infectious Disease Specialist), it was hoped that Plaintiff could return to the workplace. Id.
On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Dr. Smith, Ellis, and Lewis to update them on her medical treatment. Jan. 31, 2017 email, ECF No....
To continue reading
Request your trial