Williams v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mexico

• Decision Date: 06 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. CIV 13–0479 JB/WPL.,CIV 13–0479 JB/WPL.
• Citation: 990 F.Supp.2d 1121
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
• Parties: Teddie WILLIAMS, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Rainan Samayoa; Rainan Samayoa, a Mentally Challenged Person; and Maria Contraras, Conservator & Guardian of Rainan Samayoa, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, a body corporate of the State of New Mexico, for itself and its public operations including University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center and its components the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital Behavioral Health Programs, University of New Mexico Psychiatric Center, Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center, And Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendants.

990 F.Supp.2d 1121

Teddie WILLIAMS, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Rainan Samayoa; Rainan Samayoa, a Mentally Challenged Person; and Maria Contraras, Conservator & Guardian of Rainan Samayoa, Plaintiffs,

v.BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, a body corporate of the State of New Mexico, for itself and its public operations including University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center and its components the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital Behavioral Health Programs, University of New Mexico Psychiatric Center, Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center, And Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendants.

No. CIV 13–0479 JB/WPL.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Jan. 6, 2014.

Elias Barela, Los Lunas, NM, for Plaintiffs.

Bryan C. Garcia, Henry F. Narvaez, Narvaez Law Firm, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital Behavioral Health Programs, and the University of New Mexico Psychiatric Center.

Carlos M. Quinones, Quinones Law Firm, Santa Fe, NM, for Defendant Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center.

Alfred A. Park, Lawrence M. Marcus, Park & Associates, LLC, Albuquerque, NM, for DefendantCorrectional Healthcare Companies, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand of Claims Against the Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center with Supporting Points and Authorities, filed June 24, 2013(Doc. 16)(“Motion for Remand”).The Court held a hearing on November 19, 2013.The primary issues are: (i) whether the Defendant Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico“and its identified components,” including Defendant University of New Mexico Health Science Center, Defendant University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Defendant University of New Mexico Hospital Behavioral Health Programs, and Defendant University of New Mexico Psychiatric Center (collectively, the “UNM Defendants”), waived immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America by removing the case to federal court; (ii) whether the Court has original jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claim that the UNM Defendants violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(“EMTALA”); and (iii) whether the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.The Court concludes that the UNM Defendants' counsel have authority to represent the UNM Defendants and waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing the case to federal court.The Court has federal-question jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' EMTALA claim against the UNM Defendants and has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, because they form part of the same case or controversy as the EMTALA claim.The Court will deny the Motion for Remand.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from the Second Amended Complaint for Damages and Medical Negligence, filed November 26, 2013(Doc. 30)(“SAC”).In 2010, PlaintiffRainan Samayoa was twenty-five years old and “already had a very significant psychiatric history including a traumatic brain injury.”SAC ¶ 13, at 3.On July 3, 2010, PlaintiffTeddie Williams, Samayoa's mother, took Samayoa to the UNM Psychiatric Center emergency services, because he had symptoms of disorganized behavior; he was admitted to the UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs and discharged on August 2, 2010.SeeSAC ¶¶ 14, at 3.During his stay at the UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs and subsequent visits through February 8, 2011, Samayoawas diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, paranoid ideation, intermittent explosive disorder, auditory hallucinations, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline intellectual disorder, and traumatic brain injury.SeeSAC ¶ 15, at 3–4.When he was released from the UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs, his “mental condition had stabilized to the point he could hold meaningful conversations with his mother, Plaintiff Williams.He could function mentally within limitations and was not a harm to himself or others.”SAC ¶ 16, at 4.

On January 19, 2011, Samayoa exhibited “psychiatric behavioral problems including disorientation, confusion, depression and aggression” while he was at Valencia Counseling in Los Lunas, New Mexico; he was transported to the UNM Psychiatric Center emergency services.SAC ¶ 17, at 4.The UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs staff evaluated Samayoa and determined that he should be admitted for safety and stabilization; Samayoa was admitted involuntarily.SeeSAC ¶ 18, at 4.“A few minutes later, Plaintiff Samayoa allegedly assaulted two staff members.Instead of treating his conduct which was consistent with his mental disorder, staff involved the UNM Police Department and ultimately had Plaintiff Samayoa discharged to the custody of the Albuquerque[, New Mexico,]Police Department....”SAC ¶ 19, at 4.While he was incarcerated, Samayoa was not given his psychotropic medications, “even though [DefendantsCorrectional Healthcare Companies, Inc. and Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center(“BCMDC”) ] staff were aware he was very ill and had been on suicide watch at [the UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs].”¹SAC ¶¶ 21, at 4–5.Samayoa was incarcerated until January 26, 2011, and then transported back to the UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs.SeeSAC ¶ 20, at 4.

On February 5, 2011, Samayoa called 911, stating that he wanted to kill himself; the Belen, New Mexico, Police Department took Samayoa to the UNM Psychiatric Center ² emergency services.SeeSAC ¶ 23, at 5.The UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs evaluated Samayoa after he spent about fifty-two hours in the emergency services and determined that “his actions were inappropriate, that he had become progressively worse since incarceration and planned to transfer him from [the UNM Psychiatric Center] emergency services to [the UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs] as soon as a bed was available for him (in-patient care).”SAC ¶ 24, at 5.On February 8, 2011, the UNM Hospital Behavioral Health Programs had a unit available, “but instead, transported [Samayoa] to Mesilla Valley Hospital in Las Cruces, New Mexico, without Plaintiff Williams' consent and against her wishes.”SAC ¶ 25, at 5.The Mesilla Valley Hospital assessed that Samayoa was a danger to himself and others, and diagnosed him with a psychotic disorder and a traumatic brain injury.SeeSAC ¶ 26, at 5.Samayoa stayed at Mesilla Valley Hospital until February 24, 2011, and was then transferred to New Mexico Behavioral Health in Las Vegas, New Mexico, where he stayed until he was discharged on April 21, 2011, and ultimately diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder, psychotic disorder, and a traumatic brain injury.SeeSAC ¶¶ 26–27, at 5–6.

After these events, Samayoa “has not regained enough mental stability to hold any degree of meaningful conversations with his mother, Plaintiff Williams, or anyone else.He has remained in a volatile mental state and is periodically dangerous to himself and to others.”SAC ¶ 28, at 6.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached the standard of care for supervision, assessment, treatment, care and monitoring; that the Defendants' actions were “reckless, intentional, willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, and done in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights and safety”; and that, because of the Defendants' “negligence and departure from the standard of care, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, great personal injuries, great physical pain, mental anguish and other physical and economic damages, and have incurred expenses in an attempt to cure and/or treat their injuries.”SAC ¶¶ 29–31, at 6.The Plaintiffs allege six claims for relief against the Defendants: (i) medical negligence, seeSAC ¶¶ 33–37, at 6–7;(ii) negligence per se for violating EMTALA, seeSAC ¶¶ 38–43, at 7–8;(iii) negligence, seeSAC ¶¶ 44–48, at 8;(iv) intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeSAC ¶¶ 49–53, at 8–9;(v) negligent infliction of emotional distress, seeSAC ¶¶ 54–58, at 9–10; and (vi) loss of consortium, seeSAC ¶¶ 59–64, at 11.

On May 24, 2013, the UNM Defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1441, and1446.SeeNotice of Removalat 1, filedMay 24, 2013(Doc. 1).The BCMDC concurs in removal.SeeNotice of Removal¶ 6, at 3;Notice of Consent to Removal by Defendant Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Centerat 1–2, filedMay 28, 2013(Doc. 5).The UNM Defendants assert that the Court has federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the Plaintiffs' SAC alleges that the Defendants violated EMTALA; the Defendants contend that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the remaining counts, because the remaining claims are so related to the federal law claim that they form part of the same case and controversy.SeeNotice of Removal¶¶ 3–4, at 2–3.

The Plaintiffs contend that removal was improper, because the State of New Mexico, through its sub-division University of New Mexico, is postured as a defendant and has Eleventh Amendment immunity.SeeMotion for Remand¶ 6–7, at 2.The Plaintiffs assert that the Eleventh Amendment bars a state's own citizen from suing the State in federal court and that Ward v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services,72 F.Supp.2d 1285(D.N.M.1999)(Garcia, M.J.) makes clear that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the EMTALA claims against the UNM Defendants.SeeMotion for Remand¶¶ 9–10, at 3.Further, the Plaintiffs contend that ...