Woody v. Delray Med. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 9:15-cv-81162-ROSENBERG/BRANNON |
| Parties | KATHLEEN WOODY, for herself and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark G. Baker, MARTIN G. BAKER, and LUKE FRANKLIN BAKER, Plaintiffs, v. DELRAY MEDICAL CENTER, FAIR OAKS PAVILION AT DELRAY MEDICAL CENTER, and DR. LOUIS D. GOLD, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants Delray Medical Center and Fair Oaks Pavilion at Delray Medical Center's ("Fair Oaks") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and to Strike Plaintiffs' Demands for Punitive Damages and Attorneys' Fees [DE 22], as well as Defendant Dr. Louis D. Gold, M.D.'s ("Dr. Gold") Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Strike and Motion for More Definite Statement [DE 24]. The Court has reviewed the motions, Plaintiffs' responses, see DE 26 and 28, and Defendants' replies, see DE 27 and 30. As more fully explained below, the Motions [DE 22, 24] are GRANTED.
The Defendants argue that it is not clear precisely what claims Plaintiffs are attempting to bring, although the claims appear to sound, at least in part, in medical malpractice. The Court agrees. Count 1 of the Complaint alleges: "Defendants' egregious actions violated [the decedent's] human rights and were the proximate cause of [the decedent's] death." DE 1 at 9 (capitalization omitted). Count 2 alleges: "Defendants' gross and malicious actions of abuse including fraud falsifying of medical records, human rights violations of abuse of power, denial of treatment for lethal combination of 4 hospital administered opiates and alcohol for non-medical reasons, malicious infliction of emotional distress and reckless disregard for the consequences caused [the decedent's] death and pain and suffering to [the decedent] and his family." Id. at 10 (capitalization omitted). Accordingly, the Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiffs to clarify the nature of the claims they are pursuing.
The Defendants have raised additional arguments in support of their motions to dismiss. The Court addresses these arguments below. To the extent Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Delray Medical Center sound in medical malpractice, these claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with Florida's pre-suit notice requirements for such claims within the time specified in the statute of repose. Additionally, Defendant Fair Oaks Pavilion at Delray Medical Center is DISMISSED with prejudice because it is merely a fictitious name owned by Defendant Delray Medical Center.
In 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. See Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the following facts are taken from Plaintiffs' Complaint:
In August 2011, the decedent was 26 years old. See DE 1 at 7 ¶ 34. On August 14, 2011, he was admitted to Boca Raton Community Hospital after being found unconscious and unresponsive from a suspected alcohol overdose. Id. at 3-4 ¶¶ 5-6. Later that day, he was transferred to Defendant Fair Oaks for a mental health evaluation under Florida's Baker Act. Id.at 3-4 ¶ 5. Defendant Dr. Gold evaluated the decedent and "stated that hospitalization for the following 2 to 3 days was medically necessary." Id. at 4 ¶ 7.
The decedent's parents, who were living in Maryland, flew from Baltimore to Fort Lauderdale on August 15, 2011. Id. at 4-5 ¶¶ 8-11. After their flight landed, the decedent's father, Plaintiff Martin Baker, called the hospital and was informed that the decedent been discharged at 12:30 p.m. Id. at 5 ¶ 14. Hospital administrators "refus[ed] to supply information regarding [the decedent's] condition prior to discharge and location." Id. at 5 ¶ 15. Around 5:00 p.m., the decedent's father contacted Defendant Dr. Gold, who refused to give information regarding the decedent's condition and stated, "I hear you are going to sue me and I am retaliating with a felony against your son[.]" Id. at 5 ¶ 16.
The decedent's parents searched for him to no avail. Id. at 5 ¶ 17. They contacted the police, who informed them that at 8:10 p.m. on the night of August 15, 2011, a representative of Defendant Fair Oaks had "initiate[d] a delayed Report 8 hours after the decedent's discharge of a[n] alleged improper action by [the decedent] although no victim was listed." Id. at 5-6 ¶ 18. "The police discounted the Delayed Report . . . as so deficient as to be spurious and specious." Id. at 6 ¶ 19.
Defendant Fair Oaks discharged the decedent "without money, without transportation, [and] without any place to go." Id. at 7 ¶ 31. Defendants' "vindictive threats, abuse of authority, and retaliation" made the decedent "afraid to be seen by anyone or seek help[.]" Id. at 6 ¶ 22. the decedent "walked 9 miles in the driving rain without access to water or food with 4 hospital administered opiate drugs and alcohol inside that the hospital did not medically detox and he died within hours." Id. at 6 ¶ 23. the decedent's body was discovered the next morning, and a coroner's report listed the cause of death as "the combination of alcohol and 4 hospitaladministered opiates in the early morning hours of August 16, 2011." Id. at 6-7 ¶¶ 25-27. After his death, the decedent's admission and discharge records were "edited" and "changed" by Defendant Gold and/or others. Id. at 6-7 ¶¶ 24, 28.
"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)). Although this pleading standard "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' . . . it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (alteration added) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Pleadings 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 (citation omitted). Indeed, "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). To meet this "plausibility standard," a plaintiff must "plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678 (alteration added) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Defendant Delray Medical Center argues that Defendant Fair Oaks should be dismissed with prejudice because it is merely a fictitious name owned by Defendant Delray Medical Center, rather than a separate entity. See Mastro v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 578 F. App'x 801, 802-03 (11th Cir. 2014) (). Defendants have submitted a filing from the Florida Departmentof State Division of Corporations that proves this. See DE 22-1. The Court may consider this type of public record on a motion to dismiss. See Universal Express, Inc. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 177 F. App'x 52, 53 (11th Cir. 2006) ( ). Accordingly, Defendant Fair Oaks Pavilion at Delray Medical Center is DISMISSED with prejudice.
1. Plaintiffs' medical malpractice claim against Defendant Delray Medical Center is dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Florida's pre-suit notice requirements.
Musculoskeletal Inst. Chartered v. Parham, 745 So. 2d 946, 948 (Fla. 1999). Under Florida law, a prospective medical malpractice plaintiff must conduct a pre-suit investigation to ascertain whether medical malpractice occurred and obtain a "verified written medical expert opinion" providing "[c]orroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation[.]" Fla. Stat. § 766.203(2). The plaintiff must then serve a notice of intent to initiate litigation on any prospective defendants as follows:
After completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203(2) and prior to filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence. Notice to each prospective defendant must include, if available, a list of all known health care providers seen by the claimant for the injuries complained of subsequent to the alleged act of negligence, all known health care providers during the 2-year period prior to the alleged act of negligence who treated or evaluated the claimant, copies of all of the medical records relied upon by the expert in signing the affidavit, and the executed authorization form provided in s. 766.1065.
Fla. Stat. § 766.106(2)(a). The notice of intent to initiate litigation must be served within the statute of limitations. See Fla. Stat. § 766.106(4) ().
"The presuit investigation requirements are not jurisdictional but rather are conditions precedent to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial