Vincent v. Quality Addiction Mgmt. Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11-C-205 |
| Parties | LYNN VINCENT, individually and on behalf of JORDAN JAMISON, deceased; Plaintiff, v. QUALITY ADDICTION MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOYCE MADISON; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
This lawsuit commenced by the Plaintiff, Lynn Vincent ("Vincent"), individually and on behalf of her deceased son, Jordan Jamison ("Jamison"), is sadly illustrative of the devastating ripple effects of drug abuse and addiction. According to the Complaint, Jamison's May 24, 2008, death in Green Bay, Wisconsin was caused by his ingestion of 200 milligrams of liquid methadone, a Schedule II controlled substance, that he obtained from Defendant Joyce Madison ("Madison"). Madison obtained the methadone from Defendant Quality Addiction Management, Inc. ("QAM"), a corporation specializing in the treatment of persons suffering from opiate dependence.
Five causes of action are set forth in the Complaint: negligence against QAM (Count I); negligence against Madison - duty to third parties for violation of federal regulations (Count II); negligence per se - violation of a criminal statute (Count III); wrongful death (Count IV); and, intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V). Jurisdiction over this action is alleged to arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires that the parties be citizens of diverse states and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction. The Complaint alleges that the matter arises under federal law because it involves a violation of a federal regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 8.12. (Compl. ¶ 2.) As will be further explained, QAM challenges these jurisdictional allegations.
This Decision and Order addresses QAM's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a cause of action and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In QAM's moving brief, its primary contention is that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action against it. In its reply brief, QAM's subject matter jurisdiction arguments shift and expand.
Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the threshold question that the Court must resolve is QAM's challenge to the existence of federal jurisdiction. See e.g. Buchel-Ruegsegger v. Buchel, 576 F.3d 451, 453 (7th Cir. 2009). Subject matterjurisdiction is not an issue that can be brushed aside, see DeBartolo v. Healthsouth Corp., 569 F.3d 736, 740 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000)).
When reviewing a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court must "'accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.'" St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616, 625 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999)). In determining whether to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, "'[t]he district court may properly look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.'" Id. (quoting Long, 182 F.3d at 554). The party invoking the federal court jurisdiction must establish jurisdiction. Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 447 (7th Cir. 2005).
Prior to May 2008, Madison had a 14-year history as a family friend of Vincent and Jamison. Vincent, lives in Gwinn, Michigan, and Jamison lived in Gwinn with his mother. Madison, who lives in Oconto Falls, Wisconsin, was attempting to recover from an addiction to prescription narcotics and was being treatment at QAM's Green Bay branch. Her treatment included being prescribed methadone.
Methadone is a Schedule II substance because it is a highly addictive and dangerous narcotic with high potential for severe psychological or physical dependence. As a result, methadone's use in medical treatment is accompanied by severe restrictions. Section 8.12 of Title 42 of the Congressional Federal Regulations recognizes that as an addictive narcotic, methadone has a high potential to be illegally diverted from patients receiving methadone treatment to those who do not receive methadone treatment. As a drug addiction treatment center that prescribes methadone, QAM must abide by the standards set out in § 8.12, which includes close monitoring and assessments of treatment patients who receive take-home doses. During the spring of 2008, as a part of phase three of QAM's treatment program, QAM agreed to distribute, and Madison agreed to receive, take-home doses of methadone prescription every Wednesday.
On or about May 12, 2008, Jamison, living in Michigan at the time, visited Green Bay with his girlfriend. Although Jamison was in Green Bay at times relevant to the Complaint, and the address on his Wisconsin Identification Card was 1338 Weise Street, Green Bay, he did not intend to remain in Wisconsin.
On the morning of May 22, 2008, Jamison called Vincent and told her that he wished to return to Michigan in order to look for a job and "get back on his feet." Vincent called Madison. At Vincent's request, Madison purchased a bus ticket for Jamison that day so he could return to Michigan. Jamison did not use the bus ticket, but instead returned to Iron Mountain with a friend on May 22, 2008.
On May 23, 2008, Jamison briefly returned to Green Bay, to retrieve some of his belongings. During a telephone conversation, he told Vincent that he would take the bus that evening and return to Michigan.
However, that afternoon, Jamison and his girlfriend visited Madison's home. In the course of that visit, Madison intentionally violated QAM's instructions and policies by giving Jamison an unknown sum of money and at least 200 milligrams of liquid methadone that she had received as take-home doses from QAM. In exchange for methadone and money, Jamison provided Madison with a large bag containing about 80 Benadryl pills. Madison believed that the pills she had received from Jamison were Ecstasy,2 OxyContin, and morphine. She intended to procure these addictive narcotics from Jamison in exchange for the take-home doses of methadone prescribed to her by QAM. Use of illegal and addictive narcotics such as Ecstasy, OxyContin, and morphine is a violation of QAM policy and Wisconsin criminal law.
During the evening of May 23, 2008, Jamison and his girlfriend rented a room at a Motel 6 in Green Bay. That evening, while in the Motel 6 room, Jamison ingested the methadone dose that Madison had received from QAM. Jamison died in his motel room between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on May 24, 2008. At approximately 1:30 p.m., Jamison was found dead in his motel room by a motel housekeeper. On May 25 and May 30, 2008,Madison admitted to Vincent that she had given methadone to Jamison the night before his death.
On October 9, 2008, Madison was arrested and initially charged with first degree reckless homicide. Madison's charge was changed to manufacturing/delivering schedule I or II narcotics, a class E felony in Wisconsin according to Wisconsin Statute § 961.41(1)(a). Madison pled no contest to the charge of manufacturing/delivering schedule I or II narcotics and was found guilty of the charge on March 23, 2009.
Because QAM failed to properly assess, among other factors, Madison's long-standing addiction to prescription narcotics as a potential risk for illegal diversion, QAM failed to prevent the illegal diversion of methadone from Madison to Jamison by allowing her to take home one-week's worth of methadone at a time. Because QAM failed to properly monitor Madison's methadone use, QAM failed to prevent Jamison from receiving Madison's prescription of methadone. QAM's failure to properly monitor and assess Madison's use of all dangerous and addictive narcotics such as Ecstasy, OxyContin, and morphine, as well as her intake of the prescribed methadone, is a violation of the opioid treatment standards set forth in 42 C.F.R. § 8.12.
QAM asserts that this action does not involve a federal question as required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In its moving brief, QAM argues that 42 C.F.R. § 8 does not create a private cause of action for Vincent to pursue claims against QAM, or a standardof care that QAM had to meet with regard to its care and treatment of its patients. (Def.'s Mem. Mot. Dismiss 4-6, 8.) Vincent responds that the regulation does not explicitly create a cause of action3 but it forms an "essential component" of her state negligence claim, citing American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916). In its reply brief, for the first time, QAM focuses on the allegations of the Complaint that the matter arises under federal law because it involves a violation of a federal regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 8.12, rather than its earlier contention that the regulation does not create a private cause of action.
To continue reading
Request your trial