Ihor Jason v. Group Health Cooperative Inc ( 2013 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
IHOR CHANDRYCKI JASON, No. 12-35070
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05697-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE INC;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Ihor Chandrycki Jason appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging negligence, inadequate care, false imprisonment, and
fraud claims related to the denial of medical care to him as a Medicare patient. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Manzarek v. St.
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008), and may affirm
on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,
534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Jason’s action was proper because Jason failed to allege a
cognizable claim under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active
Labor Act (“EMTALA”), see Baker v. Adventist Health, Inc., 260 F.3d 987, 99-
932 (9th Cir. 2001) (medical malpractice is not actionable under the EMTALA),
and because there is no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, which
defines a party’s criminal liability for Medicare fraud, see Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66,
78-80 (1975) (“a bare criminal statute, with absolutely no indication that civil
enforcement of any kind was available to anyone” does not give rise to an implied
civil cause of action).
Jason’s contentions regarding defendants’ allegedly false assertions in their
briefs and the district court’s alleged failure to address his pending motion for
summary judgment are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-35070