Demisse v. Medstar Washington Hospital Center ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
SAMUEL T. DEMISSE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 18-2223 (ABJ)
)
MEDSTAR WASHINGTON )
HOSPITAL CENTER, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has sued Medstar Washington Hospital Center (“Medstar”) in
the District of Columbia for discrimination and negligence. Plaintiff complains about the
treatment he received when he visited defendant’s emergency room. Defendant has moved to
dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [Dkt. # 9]. The Court,
satisfied of its jurisdiction, finds that plaintiff has stated no viable claim. So it will grant
defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion for the reasons explained more fully below.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
At approximately 10 a.m. on September 25, 2018, plaintiff arrived at Medstar because he
was in pain, felt dizzy, had a rapid heartbeat, and was breathing rapidly. Compl. at 2. After
checking in, plaintiff “waited for some minutes” before a nurse called his name and took his
temperature and blood pressure. Id. Plaintiff then discussed via video his “pains” with a doctor,
who told plaintiff that “another doctor will visit” him “and will order some medications[.]” Id.
1
Plaintiff had certain tests done, including an electrocardiogram (“EKG), and he spoke with a
physician’s assistant. After about 30 minutes, plaintiff was offered two tablets of Tylenol “and
other medicine,” which he “refused” because he was “waiting for a doctor.” Compl. at 3.
Finally, plaintiff alleges, “after a long wait a doctor came and asked [him] question and suggestion
about [his] insurance without understanding [his] pain.” Id. The doctor told plaintiff that he was
sending him home and left the room. After about 30 more minutes, “a 5th and different nurse
came with a discharge paper” and informed plaintiff about accessing his medical records online.
Id. When plaintiff “denied that,” the nurse threatened to call security.” Id. Plaintiff conveyed
his dissatisfaction with his “treatment in the emergency room and generally in the hospital.” Id.
Plaintiff “also refused to sign the discharge paper,” and he “left the hospital without examination
and enough treatment for [his] pains,” although admittedly he was prescribed ibuprofen. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that during the visit, he saw seven medical professionals:
1. A nurse who took his blood pressure and body temperature
without any explanation.
2. A doctor on the computer screen who asked him questions and
told me another doctor will see me without any treatment and
suggestion.
3. A nurse who took an EKG “picture of his heart” without
explanation and without informing him of the result printed on the
paper
4. A nurse who took him to another room and told him to sit in a
room where he waited for more than 1 hour.
5. A nurse who brought Tylenol and other medication and a cup
with her hand.
6. A PA-C, who brought a piece of paper and asked him different
questions but did not offer treatment of the pains that brought him
to the emergency room.
2
7. A doctor who told him “in a toned voice” that he was going to
send him home without any treatment or diagnosis.
Compl. at 5. 1
B. Claims
In the section of the complaint captioned “Statement of Claims, Negligence,
Discrimination (civil right violation),” plaintiff states: “I have been treated in this hospital unfairly,
discriminated by changing medical professionals, and make me wait for a very long period of time
in the emergency room, denied me the right medical treatment.” Compl. at 6. In addition,
plaintiff claims that he was discharged “before [he was] ready.” Id. As a result, plaintiff claims
he has suffered “anxiety, stress, depression, psychological and emotional distress[.]” Id. He seeks
compensatory damages of $1,000,000 as well as punitive damages. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
“To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] 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). A claim
is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content “allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678, citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id., quoting Twombly, 550
1
Plaintiff recounts a similar visit to Medstar’s emergency room on August 9, 2018, for similar
symptoms, where he was given “different medications such as a dose of glucose” and then
discharged. Compl. at 3-4. The alleged circumstances are not materially different from the
emergency room visit at issue.
3
U.S. at 556. A pleading must offer more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action,” id., quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id., citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint is construed
liberally in the plaintiff’s favor, and the Court should grant the plaintiff “the benefit of all
inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d
1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Where the action is brought by a pro se plaintiff, a district court has
an obligation to consider “all of [his] filings together” before dismissing the complaint, Richardson
v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1999), because such complaints are held “to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972).
Nevertheless, the Court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if those inferences
are unsupported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the Court accept plaintiff’s legal
conclusions. See Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276; see also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.
Cir. 2002). In ruling upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court may ordinarily
consider only “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated
by reference in the complaint, and matters about which the Court may take judicial notice.”
Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196 (D.D.C. 2002), citing EEOC v. St. Francis
Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624-25 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
4
ANALYSIS
A. Discrimination
Plaintiff alleges that Medstar discriminated against him based on his race “by changed
nurses, doctors and medical professionals.” Compl. at 5. He also implies that his national origin
and age may have been contributing factors; he states that he is from Ethiopia, and that “senior
patients” received preferential treatment. Id. Plaintiff refers to “federal laws” prohibiting
“discrimination based on national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status,”
but he has not invoked any particular law. Id.
The problem is that plaintiff has alleged no facts tying the challenged behavior to his race
or national origin that would “nudge” his claim “across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. And “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Therefore,
the discrimination claim will be dismissed.
B. Negligence
Defendant posits that the dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claim deprives this Court of
jurisdiction over the negligence claim. Mem. of P. & A. at 5. But since the discrimination claim
conferred original jurisdiction, the Court may exercise pendant or supplemental jurisdiction “over
all other [related State and common law] claims,” or it may decline to do so. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Whether to retain jurisdiction “is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district court,” Ali
Shafi v. Palestinian Auth., 642 F.3d 1088, 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quotations and citations omitted),
and in exercising that discretion, the Court applies a two-part test crafted by the Supreme Court.
2
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e).
5
The Court must first “determine whether the state and the federal claims ‘derive from a
common nucleus of operative fact’; if they do, the court has the power, under Article III of the
Constitution, to hear the state claim.” Women Prisoners of D.C. Dep't of Corr. v. D.C., 93 F.3d
910, 920 (D.C. Cir. 1996), quoting United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725
(1966). The Court “must then decide whether to exercise its discretion to assert jurisdiction over
the state issue,” considering such factors as “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to
litigants.” Id., quoting United Mine Works, 383 U.S. at 726. Plaintiff’s negligence claim
intertwines with the federal claim, and it is equally insubstantial. So, it is appropriate to retain
jurisdiction and dismiss that claim as well.
“In the District of Columbia, as elsewhere, ‘[t]o establish negligence a plaintiff must prove
a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, and
damage to the interests of the plaintiff, proximately caused by the breach.’” Novak v. Capital
Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 907 (D.C. Cir. 2006), quoting District of Columbia v. Beretta,
U.S.A., Corp., 847 A.2d 1127, 1134 n.2 (D.C. 2004). This requires a showing that defendant’s
actions deviated from a national standard of care, focusing for example on “the course of action .
. . a reasonably prudent doctor with the defendant’s specialty would have taken under the same or
similar circumstances.” Hawes v. Chua, 769 A.2d 797, 806 (D.C. 2001) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that when he arrived at defendant’s emergency room, he “waited for
some minutes” for his name to be called. Compl. at 2. A nurse then checked his blood
pressure and temperature. The complaint reveals that (1) the hospital administered certain tests,
including an EKG; (2) plaintiff was offered Tylenol, but he refused it because he was waiting to
6
see a doctor; (3) plaintiff discussed his symptoms with several doctors; and (4) he received a
prescription for ibuprofen before he was discharged. Plaintiff takes issue primarily with the
amount of time he had to wait and the number of medical professionals he saw, but he has not
alleged that these frustrating circumstances deviated from the ordinary hospital emergency room
visit. 3
Furthermore, plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered a physical injury or an exacerbation
of his symptoms due to the hospital’s alleged delay and/or inattention. Given the absence of any
allegation that would give rise to an inference that a duty was breached or some harm came to the
plaintiff as a result, the complaint does not set forth a plausible negligence claim. The mere fact
that plaintiff suffered stress and anxiety in the bustle of a hospital emergency room “stops [well]
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, plaintiff’s negligence claim is
dismissed without prejudice. 4 See Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122, 131 (D.C. Cir.
2012), quoting Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“This court has
instructed that ‘dismissal with prejudice is warranted only when a trial court determines that the
3
In “[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief,” a court may “draw
on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
4
In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff recounts a hospital visit on October 16,
2018, in addition to his “previous complaints,” and he mentions negligence and “medical neglect.”
Opp’n at 4-6 [Dkt. 14]. It is established in this circuit that a plaintiff cannot amend his complaint
through an opposition. See Furey v. Mnuchin, 334 F. Supp. 3d 148, 164 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing
cases). An amendment in this case would be futile in any event since the federal claim is
dismissed and diversity jurisdiction is lacking. See Def.’s Mem. at 5-6. Plaintiff is free to pursue
any common law claims and claims under D.C. law in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia.
7
allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the
deficiency.’”).
The Court does not mean to suggest that plaintiff does not have a legitimate gripe about his
experience. But the fact that he -- like legions of emergency room patients of every race, religion,
and national origin -- was frustrated by the wait does not state a million-dollar claim.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss. A separate
Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
DATE: January 30, 2020 United States District Judge
8