Wall v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    LUCAS WALL,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    Civ. Action No. 20-2075
    RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE                      (EGS/GMH)
    INSURANCE CO., et al.,
    Defendants.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    I.       Introduction
    Plaintiff Lucas Wall (“Mr. Wall”), proceeding pro se,
    brings this lawsuit against Reliance Standard Life Insurance
    Company (“Reliance”) and Dr. Tajuddin Jiva, M.D. (“Dr. Jiva”)
    (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking damages following the
    termination of his disability benefits. Second Am. Compl., ECF
    No. 32; 1 Wall v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. CV 20-2075
    (EGS), 
    2021 WL 2209405
    , at *12 (D.D.C. June 1, 2021). As
    relevant here, Mr. Wall alleges one count of medical malpractice
    against Dr. Jiva. See Wall, 
    2021 WL 2209405
    , at *12.
    On February 1, 2022, the Court referred this case to a
    magistrate judge for full case management, see Minute Order
    1 When citing electronic filings throughout this Opinion, the
    Court refers to the ECF page numbers, not the page numbers of
    the filed documents.
    1
    (Feb. 1, 2022); and the case was randomly assigned to Magistrate
    Judge G. Michael Harvey, see Docket Civ. Action No. 20-2075. Dr.
    Jiva thereafter moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss
    the count against him. See Def., Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.’s, Mot. J.
    Pleadings Dismiss Count VII of Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 73. On
    July 5, 2022, Magistrate Judge Harvey issued a Report and
    Recommendation (“R. & R.”) recommending that the Court grant Dr.
    Jiva’s motion. See R. & R., ECF No. 83.
    Pending before the Court are Mr. Wall’s Objections to the
    R. & R., see Pl.’s Objs. Magistrate’s R. & R. on Def. Tajuddin
    Jiva’s Mot. J. Pleadings (“Pl.’s Objs.”), ECF No. 84; and Mr.
    Wall’s Motion to Vacate Part of the Court’s June 1, 2021 Order,
    see Pl.’s Mot. Vacate Part of Ct.’s June 1, 2021, Order &
    Reinstate Counts II & IV of Second Am. Compl. Against Def.
    Tajuddin Jiva (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 85. Upon careful
    consideration of the R. & R., the objections, and opposition
    thereto; the motion and opposition thereto; the applicable law;
    and the entire record herein, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate
    Judge Harvey’s R. & R., see ECF No. 83; GRANTS Dr. Jiva’s Motion
    for Judgment on the Pleadings, see ECF No. 73; and DENIES Mr.
    Wall’s Motion to Vacate Part of the Court’s June 1, 2021 Order,
    see ECF No. 85.
    2
    II.   Background
    A.    Factual
    The background of this litigation was set forth in the
    Court’s prior opinion and will not be repeated here. See Wall,
    
    2021 WL 2209405
    , at *1. In short, Mr. Wall alleges that Reliance
    underwrites and administers his long-term disability benefits
    through a policy for the employees of the American Association
    of State Highway & Transportation Officials, by whom he was
    employed from June 2008 until March 2012. See Second Am. Compl.,
    ECF No. 32 ¶¶ 1-2. In March 2012, Mr. Wall became “Totally
    Disabled” due to Non-24-Hour Sleep/Wake Disorder. Id. ¶ 1. He
    received long-term disability benefits until January 29, 2020,
    when Reliance notified him that it was terminating his benefits.
    Id. ¶ 11.
    On April 30, 2020, Mr. Wall appealed Reliance’s termination
    decision. Id. ¶ 15. He alleges that Reliance then commissioned a
    “peer review” by Dr. Jiva and that he submitted a rebuttal to
    Dr. Jiva’s report. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Reliance denied his appeal on
    July 29, 2020. Id. ¶ 20. Thereafter, Reliance had Mr. Wall
    undergo an Independent Medical Examination, after which the
    termination of his benefits was reversed. Id. ¶¶ 22-23.
    B.    Procedural
    On April 5, 2022, Dr. Jiva moved for judgment on the
    pleadings. See Def., Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.’s, Mot. J. Pleadings
    3
    Dismiss Count VII of Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 73. Mr. Wall
    filed a brief in opposition on April 24, 2022, see Pl.’s Opp’n
    Def. Tajuddin Jiva’s Mot. J. Pleadings, ECF No. 75; and Dr. Jiva
    filed his reply brief on May 2, 2022, see Def. Tajuddin Jiva,
    M.D.’s Reply Pl.’s Opp’n Def.’s Mot. J. Pleadings Dismiss Count
    VII, Pl.’s Medical Malpractice Claim, from Second Am. Compl.,
    ECF No. 77. On July 5, 2022, Magistrate Judge Harvey issued his
    R. & R. recommending that the Court grant Dr. Jiva’s motion. See
    R. & R., ECF No. 83.
    On July 19, 2022, Mr. Wall submitted Objections to the R. &
    R. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84. Dr. Jiva filed an opposition
    brief on August 2, 2022. See Def., Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.’s, Resp.
    Pl.’s Objs. Magistrate Judge’s R. & R. (#83) on Def.’s Mot. J.
    Pleadings (“Def.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 87.
    Mr. Wall also filed a Motion to Vacate Part of the Court’s
    June 1, 2021 Order on July 20, 2022. See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 85.
    Dr. Jiva filed his opposition on August 2, 2022. See Def.,
    Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.’s, Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. (#85) Vacate Part of
    Ct.’s June 1, 2021 Order (#26) (“Def.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 86.
    The objections and the motion are now ripe and ready for
    adjudication.
    4
    III. Legal Standard
    A.   Objections to a Magistrate Judge’s R. & R.
    Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party
    may file specific written objections once a magistrate judge has
    entered a recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)-(2).
    A district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
    disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or
    modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
    made by the magistrate judge.”). A district court “must
    determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
    that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
    “If, however, the party makes only conclusory or general
    objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the
    Court reviews the [R. & R.] only for clear error.” Houlahan v.
    Brown, 
    979 F. Supp. 2d 86
    , 88 (D.D.C. 2013) (citation and
    internal quotation marks omitted). “Under the clearly erroneous
    standard, the magistrate judge’s decision is entitled to great
    deference” and “is clearly erroneous only if on the entire
    evidence the court is left with the definite and firm conviction
    that a mistake has been committed.” Buie v. Dist. of Columbia,
    No. CV 16-1920 (CKK), 
    2019 WL 4345712
    , at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 12,
    2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham v.
    Mukasey, 
    608 F. Supp. 2d 50
    , 52 (D.D.C. 2009)).
    5
    Objections must “specifically identify the portions of the
    proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made
    and the basis for the objection.” LCvR 72.3(b). “[O]bjections
    which merely rehash an argument presented and considered by the
    magistrate judge are not ‘properly objected to’ and are
    therefore not entitled to de novo review.” Shurtleff v. EPA, 
    991 F. Supp. 2d 1
    , 8 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Morgan v. Astrue, No.
    08-2133, 
    2009 WL 3541001
    , at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2009)). The
    Court reviews Mr. Wall’s objections de novo.
    B.   Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
    Under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
    “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay
    trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 12(c). A motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) is appropriately
    granted when, at the close of the pleadings, “no material issue
    of fact remains to be solved, and [the movant] is clearly
    entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Montanans for Multiple
    Use v. Barbouletos, 
    542 F. Supp. 2d 9
    , 13 (D.D.C. 2008)
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
    When evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings
    under Rule 12(c), courts employ the same standard that governs a
    Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Jung v. Ass’n of Am. Med.
    Colls., 
    339 F. Supp. 2d 26
    , 35–36 (D.D.C. 2004). A court must
    treat the factual allegations in the complaint as true, “even if
    6
    doubtful in fact,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 555
    (2007); but it need not accept as true legal conclusions set
    forth in a complaint, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678
    (2009). Accordingly, a court must accept the plaintiff’s well-
    pleaded factual allegations to the extent that “they plausibly
    give rise to an entitlement to relief,” 
    id. at 679
    ; and “may
    thus only grant judgment on the pleadings if it appears, even
    accepting as true all inferences from the complaint’s factual
    allegations, that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts
    entitling him to relief,” Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg
    LLP, 
    786 F. Supp. 2d 240
    , 265 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing In re United
    Mine Workers of Am. Emp. Benefit Plans Litig., 
    854 F. Supp. 914
    ,
    915 (D.D.C. 1994)).
    C.   Motion to Vacate Order
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs Mr. Wall’s
    Motion to Vacate Part of the Court’s June 1, 2021 Order, ECF No.
    85, because the Court has not entered a final judgment. Shapiro
    v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., No. CV 13-555 (RDM), 
    2016 WL 3023980
    , at
    *2 (D.D.C. May 25, 2016) (applying Rule 54(b) to a motion for
    reconsideration “[b]ecause the Court ha[d] not entered final
    judgment”). Under Rule 54(b), “the Court [may] revisit any order
    that adjudicates ‘fewer than all the claims or rights and
    liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . at any time
    7
    before’ the entry of final judgment.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 54(b)).
    The standard for determining whether or not to grant a Rule
    54(b) motion is the “as justice requires” standard. Jud. Watch
    v. Dep’t of Army, 
    466 F. Supp. 2d 112
    , 123 (D.D.C. 2006). Under
    this flexible standard, the Court considers “whether the court
    patently misunderstood the parties, made a decision beyond the
    adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to
    consider controlling decisions or data, or whether a controlling
    or significant change in the law has occurred.” In Def. of
    Animals v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, 
    543 F. Supp. 2d 70
    , 75
    (D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
    Montgomery v. Internal Revenue Serv., 
    356 F. Supp. 3d 74
    , 79
    (D.D.C. 2019), aff’d, 
    40 F.4th 702
     (D.C. Cir. 2022) (“[T]here
    must be some ‘good reason’ to reconsider an issue already
    litigated by the parties and decided by the court, such as new
    information, a misunderstanding, or a clear error.”).
    The moving party has the burden of demonstrating “‘that
    some harm, legal or at least tangible, would flow from a denial
    of reconsideration.’” In Def. of Animals, 
    543 F. Supp. 2d at 76
    (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 
    355 F. Supp. 2d 531
    , 540 (D.D.C.
    2005)). “[E]ven if justice does not require reconsideration of
    an interlocutory ruling, a decision to reconsider is nonetheless
    within the court’s discretion.” 
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks
    8
    omitted). However, this discretion is “limited by the law of the
    case doctrine and ‘subject to the caveat that where litigants
    have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither
    be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it
    again.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting Singh v. George Wash. Univ., 
    383 F. Supp. 2d 99
    , 101 (D.D.C. 2005)).
    D.   Pro Se Litigants
    “[P]ro se litigants are not held to the same standards in
    all respects as are lawyers.” Roosevelt Land, LP v. Childress,
    No. CIV.A. 05-1292(RWR), 
    2006 WL 1877014
    , at *2 (D.D.C. July 5,
    2006) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520 (1972)). The
    pleadings of pro se parties therefore “[are] to be liberally
    construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 
    551 U.S. 89
    , 94 (2007) (per
    curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even
    so, “[t]his benefit is not . . . a license to ignore the Federal
    Rules of Civil Procedure.” Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 
    658 F. Supp. 2d 135
    , 137 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch, 
    656 F. Supp. 237
    , 239 (D.D.C. 1987)). Pro se litigants must comply
    with federal and local rules. See Jarrell, 
    656 F. Supp. at 239
    ;
    Roosevelt Land, 
    2006 WL 1877014
    , at *2.
    9
    III. Analysis
    A.   New York Law Governs Mr. Wall’s Medical Malpractice
    Claim
    Mr. Wall objects to Magistrate Judge Harvey’s conclusion
    that New York substantive law should govern this dispute and
    argues that District of Columbia substantive law should apply
    instead. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84 at 7-10. For the reasons
    that follow, the Court concludes that New York law applies to
    Mr. Wall’s medical malpractice claim and ADOPTS this portion of
    Magistrate Judge Harvey’s R. & R.
    To resolve Mr. Wall’s medical malpractice claim against Dr.
    Jiva, the Court first must determine whether New York or
    District of Columbia law governs the dispute. 2 Magistrate Judge
    Harvey resolved the dispute in favor of New York law on two
    grounds: (1) New York law applies because the parties implicitly
    agree that New York law applies, see R. & R., ECF No. 83 at 6-7;
    and (2) New York law applies because New York has a greater
    interest in applying its law to this dispute, see id. at 8-12.
    Mr. Wall objects to both conclusions, see Pl.’s Objs., ECF No.
    84 at 7-10; and the Court addresses each objection in turn.
    2 As Magistrate Judge Harvey explained in the R. & R., New York
    and District of Columbia law are the only options to resolve
    this choice-of-law question. See R. & R., ECF No. 83 at 6 & n.4.
    The medical malpractice claim involves Dr. Jiva, who is a
    resident of New York, and Mr. Wall, who is a resident of the
    District of Columbia. See Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 32 at 2.
    10
    1.   The Parties’ Agreement
    Mr. Wall first argues that he did not agree—implicitly or
    otherwise—that New York law governs this dispute. See id. at 7-
    8. He contends that, as a pro se litigant, he did not waive or
    forfeit any choice-of-law arguments because he “ha[s] no concept
    of ‘choice of law’” and is “therefore entitled to deference in
    raising these arguments now.” Id. at 7. For further support, he
    points to his briefing on Dr. Jiva’s motion and reasons that his
    reference to the law of other jurisdictions—including, for
    example, Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts,
    Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, and
    Virginia—confirms that he did not understand the choice-of-law
    question. Id. at 7-8 (citing R. & R., ECF No. 83 at 7). Dr. Jiva
    responds that Mr. Wall waived any argument that District of
    Columbia law applies here because he did not raise that argument
    in his Rule 12(c) opposition briefing. Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 87
    at 2 (citing Essroc Cement Corp. v. CTI/D.C., Inc., 
    740 F. Supp. 2d 131
    , 138-39 (D.D.C. 2010); Am. Civ. Constr., LLC v. Fort Myer
    Constr. Corp., 
    296 F. Supp. 3d 198
    , 203-04 (D.D.C. 2018)). He
    further argues that Mr. Wall’s ignorance of choice-of-law
    principles is no excuse. See 
    id.
    The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Harvey’s analysis
    and conclusion. In deciding a choice-of-law question, a court
    may apply the law of the jurisdiction that the parties agree
    11
    governs the dispute. See Perry Cap. LLC v. Mnuchin, 
    864 F.3d 591
    , 626 n.24 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (applying Delaware law where
    parties agreed to apply Delaware law); Am. Civ. Constr., LLC,
    296 F. Supp. 3d at 204 (applying District of Columbia law to
    contract dispute where parties “appear[ed] to implicitly agree”
    that District of Columbia law should govern). The parties’
    agreement also serves as waiver of any objection to the court’s
    application of that law. See Perry Cap. LLC, 864 F.3d at 626
    n.24. Here, the parties—including Mr. Wall—have agreed that New
    York law should govern the medical malpractice claim. Dr. Jiva
    argued that New York law should apply in his Motion for Judgment
    on the Pleadings. See Mem. in Supp. of Def. Tajuddin Jiva,
    M.D.’s Mot. J. Pleadings Dismiss Count VII, Pl.’s Medical
    Malpractice Claim, from Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 73-1 at 4-6.
    Mr. Wall accepted that New York law would govern this claim in
    his opposition brief. See Pl.’s Opp’n Def. Tajuddin Jiva’s Mot.
    J. Pleadings, ECF No. 75 at 3 (“There are four basic elements of
    a compensable medical malpractice claim in New York.”); id. at 4
    (“Dr. Jiva ignores that New York law defines medical misconduct
    as including ‘Practicing the profession with gross negligence on
    a particular occasion’ and ‘Practicing the profession with gross
    incompetence.’” (quoting 
    N.Y. Educ. Law § 6530
    )); id. at 8
    (“There is no distinction in New York between malpractice
    insurance available to doctors performing independent medical
    12
    exams than to those practicing medicine in more traditional
    contexts.” (citing Bazakos v. Lewis, 
    911 N.E.2d 847
     (N.Y.
    2009))). Mr. Wall did not suggest that the law of any
    jurisdiction other than New York should apply to this claim,
    thereby conceding that New York law governs. See Buggs v.
    Powell, 
    293 F. Supp. 2d 135
    , 141 (D.D.C. 2003) (“It is
    understood in this Circuit that when a plaintiff files an
    opposition to a dispositive motion and addresses only certain
    arguments raised by the defendant, a court may treat those
    arguments that the plaintiff failed to address as conceded.”
    (citing FDIC v. Bender, 
    127 F.3d 58
    , 67–68 (D.C. Cir. 1997);
    Stephenson v. Cox, 
    223 F. Supp. 2d 119
    , 121 (D.D.C. 2002))).
    Mr. Wall’s status as a pro se plaintiff does not change the
    Court’s conclusion. True, the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff
    are “subject to ‘less stringent standards than formal pleadings
    drafted by lawyers.’” Gray v. Poole, 
    275 F.3d 1113
    , 1115 (D.C.
    Cir. 2002) (quoting Haines, 
    404 U.S. at 520
    ). Nevertheless, the
    Court cannot ignore the fact that Mr. Wall failed to address Dr.
    Jiva’s specific argument that New York law applies to the
    medical malpractice claim. See Boritz v. United States, 
    685 F. Supp. 2d 113
    , 121 (D.D.C. 2010) (treating argument as conceded
    where pro se plaintiff failed to respond to it despite
    submitting an opposition brief). Nor can it avoid Mr. Wall’s
    specific references to New York law. See supra. The Court is
    13
    therefore satisfied that Mr. Wall agreed that New York law
    governs his medical malpractice claim.
    2.   Choice-of-Law Analysis
    Mr. Wall also objects to Magistrate Judge Harvey’s choice-
    of-law analysis. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84 at 8-10. He
    concedes, as he must, that Magistrate Judge Harvey relied on the
    appropriate legal standard. Id. at 8-9. That is: a federal court
    sitting in diversity must “apply the choice-of-law rules of the
    jurisdiction in which they sit.” Ideal Elec. Sec. Co. v. Int’l
    Fid. Ins. Co., 
    129 F.3d 143
    , 148 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Lee v.
    Flintkote Co., 
    593 F.2d 1275
    , 1278–79 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1979)).
    District of Columbia law requires that the Court first determine
    whether a “true conflict” exists between the laws of the
    jurisdictions. See Margolis v. U-Haul Int’l, Inc., 
    818 F. Supp. 2d 91
    , 100 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Estate of Doe v. Islamic
    Republic of Iran, 
    808 F. Supp. 2d 1
    , 20 (D.D.C. Aug. 16, 2011);
    Sloan v. Urban Title Servs., Inc., 
    689 F. Supp. 2d 123
    , 132
    (D.D.C. 2010); GEICO v. Fetisoff, 
    958 F.2d 1137
    , 1141 (D.C. Cir.
    1992)). Where, as here, there is a true conflict, the Court
    applies the District of Columbia’s “‘modified governmental
    interests analysis which seeks to identify the jurisdiction with
    the most significant relationship to the dispute.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting
    Washkoviak v. Student Loan Mktg. Ass’n, 
    900 A.2d 168
    , 180 (D.C.
    2006)). Under this approach, the Court considers four factors:
    14
    (1) the place where the injury occurred, (2) the place where the
    conduct causing the injury occurred, (3) the domicile or place
    of business of the parties, and (4) the place where the parties’
    relationship is centered. See Drs. Groover, Christie & Merritt,
    P.C. v. Burke, 
    917 A.2d 1110
    , 1117 (D.C. 2007) (citing
    Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145). “As a rule,
    ‘the state with the most significant relationship should also be
    the state whose policy is advanced by application of [its]
    law.’” Id. at 1118 (quoting Hercules & Co. Ltd. v. Shama Rest.
    Corp., 
    566 A.2d 31
    , 41 n.18 (D.C. 1989)).
    Mr. Wall objects to four points in the R. & R. See Pl.’s
    Objs., ECF No. 84 at 8-10. First, he argues that Magistrate
    Judge Harvey incorrectly determined that the first factor—the
    place where the injury occurred—weighs in favor of New York. See
    id. at 8. He contends that the injury occurred in the District
    of Columbia because that is “where [he] reside[s] and was forced
    to do without half [his] income after [his] long-term disability
    benefits were revoked as a result of Dr. Jiva’s shoddy peer
    review.” Id. Dr. Jiva does not specifically address this point
    in his opposition briefing. See generally Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No.
    87. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Harvey
    that this factor does not support either jurisdiction. See R. &
    R., ECF No. 83 at 11-12. As the Court explained in its prior
    Memorandum Opinion, Mr. Wall’s medical malpractice claim “is not
    15
    related to the denial of benefits, but rather alleges that Dr.
    Jiva’s conduct breached the applicable standard of care.” Wall,
    
    2021 WL 2209405
    , at *11. This point is essential: Mr. Wall’s
    medical malpractice claim survived because it did not conflict
    with the provisions or object of ERISA. See 
    id.
     The claim did
    not conflict with ERISA because it focused on an injury other
    than the denial of benefits. See 
    id.
     As such, the Court is
    persuaded that the injury for this claim must have occurred when
    Dr. Jiva transmitted his report to Reliance, not when Mr. Wall
    was denied his benefits. See 
    id.
     Because Dr. Jiva transmitted
    his report from New York to Pennsylvania, New York does not have
    a strong claim on this factor. Further, because the transmission
    of the report did not involve the District of Columbia, the
    District of Columbia does not have a claim on this factor
    either. The Court therefore concludes that Magistrate Judge
    Harvey correctly determined that the first factor does not
    support application of the law of either jurisdiction.
    Second, Mr. Wall contends that the second factor—the place
    where the conduct causing the injury occurred—favors application
    of District of Columbia law. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84 at 9-
    10. Specifically, he argues that Dr. Jiva’s conduct “directly
    led” to his injuries. Id. at 10. This argument is unpersuasive.
    The inquiry is where Dr. Jiva’s conduct occurred. Because Dr.
    Jiva acted in New York, this second factor points in favor of
    16
    New York law. See Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 32 ¶ 256 (stating
    that Defendant Jiva “practices in New York”); Ex. 22, ECF No.
    21-22 at 2 (stating that Dr. Jiva’s “[r]eport was written in New
    York state”).
    Third, Mr. Wall argues that the fourth factor—the place
    where the parties’ relationship is centered—should weigh in
    favor of District of Columbia law. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84
    at 9. He does not explain this objection. See generally id.
    Because the Court detects no error in the R. & R., the Court
    agrees with Magistrate Judge Harvey that the parties’
    relationship is centered in New York. See Houlahan, 
    979 F. Supp. 2d at 88
     (“If, however, the party makes only conclusory or
    general objections, . . . the Court reviews the [R. & R.] only
    for clear error.”).
    Fourth, Mr. Wall contends that the District of Columbia has
    the stronger interest in having its law applied to this claim.
    See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84 at 9. He points to: (1) “the general
    public policy interest of ensuring that D.C. residents receive
    adequate medical care and are not injured by physicians who are
    sworn to help people”; (2) the “special concern” that people
    with disabilities “receive[] the disability benefits to which
    [they are] entitled”; and (3) the financial harm the
    jurisdiction suffers when people with disabilities who are
    denied disability benefits become public charges. 
    Id.
     Mr. Wall
    17
    has misconstrued the caselaw here. The Court of Appeals for the
    District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) has explained that
    “‘[t]he state where the defendant’s conduct occurs has the
    dominant interest in regulating it,’ . . . particularly so
    where, as here, it is impossible meaningfully to separate the
    injury from the tortious conduct, and where other factors—such
    as the residence or place of business of the parties—do not
    point in the opposite direction.” Bledsoe v. Crowley, 
    849 F.2d 639
    , 643 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting Biscoe v. Arlington Cnty.,
    
    738 F.2d 1352
    , 1361 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Restatement (Second) of
    Conflict of Laws § 146). Here, Dr. Jiva’s conduct occurred in
    New York. Further, the fourth factor also weighs in favor of
    application of New York law, and the first and third factors do
    not favor application of the law of either jurisdiction. See
    supra. Accordingly, New York has the stronger interest in having
    its law applied to this medical malpractice claim. See also Drs.
    Groover, Christie & Merritt, 
    917 A.2d at 1118
     (“As a rule, ‘the
    state with the most significant relationship should also be the
    state whose policy is advanced by application of [its] law.’”
    (quoting Hercules, 
    566 A.2d at
    41 n.18)).
    The Court therefore concludes that New York law governs Mr.
    Wall’s medical malpractice claim and ADOPTS this portion of
    Magistrate Judge Harvey’s R. & R.
    18
    B.   The Court Will Not Permit Mr. Wall to Pursue His
    Previously Dismissed Negligence and Bad Faith Claims
    Against Dr. Jiva
    Mr. Wall asks the Court to “reinstate” his negligence and
    bad faith claims against Dr. Jiva. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84
    at 1-7; Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 85 at 1-8. He admits “uncertainty as
    to how the Court must achieve th[is] result,” Pl.’s Objs., ECF
    No. 84 at 6; and provides two routes: (1) reject Magistrate
    Judge Harvey’s recommendation that the Court grant Dr. Jiva’s
    motion and instead convert the medical malpractice claim into a
    negligence claim, see id. at 1-7; or (2) vacate the Court’s June
    1, 2021 Order dismissing Counts II and IV of the Second Amended
    Complaint and reinstate those claims against Dr. Jiva, see Pl.’s
    Mot., ECF No. 85 at 1-8. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES
    Mr. Wall’s motion.
    1.   Magistrate Judge Harvey Appropriately Considered
    Only Mr. Wall’s Medical Malpractice Claim Against
    Dr. Jiva
    Mr. Wall first argues that, upon concluding that a
    physician-patient relationship did not exist, Magistrate Judge
    Harvey should have reinstated his negligence and bad faith
    claims against Dr. Jiva instead of granting Dr. Jiva judgment on
    the pleadings. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84 at 1-7. He reasons
    that judgment on the pleadings is inappropriate because the
    Second Amended Complaint contains material facts that Dr. Jiva
    did not dispute. See id. at 2-3. He further contends that
    19
    Magistrate Judge Harvey erred by failing to consider whether the
    medical malpractice claim could be converted into negligence and
    bad faith claims given the caselaw in New York permitting the
    latter two claims to proceed without the existence of a
    physician-patient relationship. See id. at 3-6.
    The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Harvey
    appropriately recommended that Dr. Jiva be granted judgment on
    the pleadings. As explained supra, Magistrate Judge Harvey
    correctly determined that there was no physician-patient
    relationship between Mr. Wall and Dr. Jiva. The facts Mr. Wall
    discusses in his Objections to the R. & R. go to the elements of
    a medical malpractice claim. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 84 at 1-7.
    But because “‘[l]iability for medical malpractice may not be
    imposed in the absence of a physician-patient relationship,’”
    Blau v. Benodin, 
    140 N.Y.S.3d 576
    , 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
    (quoting Thomas v. Hermoso, 
    973 N.Y.S.2d 344
    , 346 (N.Y. App.
    Div. 2013)); Dr. Jiva did not need to establish anything else to
    succeed in his motion.
    The only appropriate action for the Court to take, then, is
    to grant Dr. Jiva judgment on the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(c). Magistrate Judge Harvey had no occasion to consider
    taking any other action, including reinstating claims that this
    Court previously dismissed, because Dr. Jiva’s motion was the
    only motion before him. See Docket for Civ. Action No. 20-2075.
    20
    Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Harvey’s
    recommendation that the Court grant Dr. Jiva judgment on the
    pleadings.
    2.   The Court Agrees with Its Prior Decision to
    Dismiss Mr. Wall’s Negligence and Bad Faith
    Claims Against Dr. Jiva
    Mr. Wall has also filed a motion asking the Court to vacate
    the part of its June 1, 2021 Order dismissing his negligence and
    bad faith claims against Dr. Jiva. See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 85.
    The Court construes the Motion to Vacate as a motion for
    reconsideration under Rule 54(b). See Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t of
    Just., 
    231 F. Supp. 2d 1
    , 6 n.8 (D.D.C. 2002) (noting that Rule
    54(b) supplies the appropriate standard where a party asks the
    court to alter or amend an interlocutory judgment). Rule 54(b)
    provides that an order or decision which “adjudicates fewer than
    all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all
    the parties” is subject to revision “at any time before the
    entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the
    parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A Rule
    54(b) motion for reconsideration should be granted “as justice
    requires.” Cobell, 
    355 F. Supp. 2d at 539
    . What “justice
    requires” depends on the circumstances. 
    Id.
     For example, justice
    may require revision of a prior opinion and order when the Court
    “has patently misunderstood a party,” has made a decision
    outside the scope of the issues presented by the parties, “has
    21
    made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension,” or where
    there has been a significant or controlling change in the law or
    facts since the issue was submitted to the Court. 
    Id.
     (citations
    and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has broad
    discretion in ruling on a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration.
    
    Id.
    As a preliminary matter, Dr. Jiva argues that Mr. Wall’s
    Motion to Vacate is untimely. Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 86 at 3, 5-
    6. He contends that “[t]here is significant undue delay [in Mr.
    Wall’s] request, as the matter has been pending for almost two
    years and Defendant Jiva’s Motion for Judgment has been pending
    for approximately four (4) months.” 
    Id.
     at 5 (citing Smith v.
    Angelone, 
    111 F.3d 1126
    , 1135 (4th Cir. 1997); Molovinsky v.
    Monterey Co-Op, Inc., 
    689 A.2d 531
    , 534 (D.C. 1996)). He also
    compares this motion to a motion for leave to amend a complaint
    after summary judgment has been granted and points to the
    caselaw denying such motions to amend where, as here, “the
    [p]laintiff has waited many years before seeking amendments or
    summary judgment has already been granted.” 
    Id.
     (citing Gillard
    v. Gruenberg, 
    302 F. Supp. 3d 257
    , 273 (D.D.C. 2018)).
    The Court declines to find Mr. Wall’s Motion to Vacate to
    be untimely. The Federal Rules do not establish a deadline for
    filing a Rule 54(b) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court
    finds no occasion to impose a deadline here. Dr. Jiva’s
    22
    citations are unpersuasive: Smith involves a federal habeas
    petition, Smith, 
    111 F.3d at 1128, 1135
    ; and Molovinsky involves
    state court rules on amending a complaint, Molovinsky, 689 A.2d
    at 533-34 (discussing D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15). This
    motion is also unlike a motion for leave to amend a complaint;
    Mr. Wall is instead asking the Court to revise its prior
    Memorandum Opinion and Order so that he may pursue claims he has
    already attempted to add to his complaint. See Second Am.
    Compl., ECF 32. The Court therefore will proceed to the merits
    of the motion.
    Mr. Wall contends that the Court must allow him to pursue
    his negligence and bad faith claims because it “is not in the
    interest of justice” for him to be left without a remedy against
    Dr. Jiva. Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 85 at 1. As to the negligence
    claim, he first argues that “the Court did not offer any
    analysis of the claim specifically against Dr. Jiva” and instead
    determined that ERISA preempted the negligence claim against
    Reliance. Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 85 at 2 (citing Wall, 
    2021 WL 2209405
    , at *9). He reasons that, like his medical malpractice
    claim, his negligence claim against Dr. Jiva does not “relate
    to” an ERISA plan. 
    Id.
     at 5 (citing Padeh v. Zagoria, 
    900 F. Supp. 442
    , 445, 447 (S.D. Fla. 1995)). Mr. Wall has misread the
    Court’s prior Memorandum Opinion. There, the Court specifically
    considered his negligence claims against Reliance, Dr. Brodner,
    23
    and Dr. Jiva. Wall, 
    2021 WL 2209405
    , at *9. The Court determined
    that none of these claims would survive a motion to dismiss
    because the claims “ask the Court to review the manner in which
    the termination decision was made” and thus seek to “supplement[
    ] . . . the ERISA civil enforcement remedy.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Aetna
    Health Inc. v. Davila, 
    542 U.S. 200
    , 209 (2004)). The Court
    agrees with its previous reasoning that the negligence claim
    against Dr. Jiva is preempted. Because a preempted claim would
    not survive a motion to dismiss, the Court correctly denied Mr.
    Wall’s motion for leave to amend his complaint to add this
    claim. See James Madison Ltd. By Hecht v. Ludwig, 
    82 F.3d 1085
    ,
    1099 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“Courts may deny a motion to amend a
    complaint as futile . . . if the proposed claim would not
    survive a motion to dismiss.” (citing Foman v. Davis, 
    371 U.S. 178
     (1962))).
    Mr. Wall further argues that the Court failed to consider:
    New York caselaw permitting negligence claims when plaintiffs
    cannot pursue medical malpractice claims, the allegations he has
    made against Dr. Jiva, and the elements of a negligence claim.
    See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 85 at 2-6. The Court does not need to
    consider any of these arguments. A plaintiff may not maintain a
    state-law claim where, as here, it is preempted by ERISA. See
    Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 
    577 U.S. 312
    , 319-20 (2016).
    24
    The Court therefore DENIES Mr. Wall’s motion as to his
    negligence claim.
    As to the bad faith claim, Mr. Wall accuses the Court of
    dismissing the claim without citing any authority or explaining
    its reasoning. See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 85 at 6. He contends that
    he “state[d] [his] case for bad faith” in the Second Amended
    Complaint and that he incorporated his bad faith claim from his
    New York State Department of Health complaint into the Second
    Amended Complaint. 
    Id.
     at 5-6 (citing Second Am. Compl., ECF No.
    32 ¶¶ 119, 176, 177-83). He also argues that the Rule 15(a)(2)
    standard requires that the Court allow him to maintain this
    claim. 
    Id.
     at 8 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)).
    Again, Mr. Wall has misread the Court’s prior Memorandum
    Opinion. There, the Court explained: “As to his claims for ‘bad
    faith’ against . . . Dr. Jiva, Mr. Wall has presented no
    authority supporting a common law cause of action for ‘bad
    faith’ under District of Columbia law based on the allegations
    in the Amended Complaint, and the Court is aware of none.” Wall,
    
    2021 WL 2209405
    , at *6. Having reviewed the Second Amended
    Complaint and incorporated materials again, the Court agrees
    with its prior analysis. In the Second Amended Complaint, Mr.
    Wall discusses bad faith claims—but only against insurance
    companies. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 32 ¶¶ 119-174. He does not
    provide any legal authority for his claim against Dr. Jiva, see
    25
    id. ¶¶ 176-77; and the papers he incorporates do not supply that
    authority either, see Ex. 22, ECF No. 21-22 at 24-25. By failing
    to cite any legal authority, Mr. Wall failed to provide a theory
    of liability and therefore failed to state a claim to relief.
    See Young v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., No. CV 17-02428 (JDB), 
    2018 WL 3941948
    , at *5 (D.D.C. Aug. 16, 2018) (dismissal was warranted
    where complaint did not include the specific causes of action
    under which the plaintiffs were suing). Accordingly, the Court
    DENIES Mr. Wall’s Motion to Vacate as to his bad faith claim.
    IV.   Conclusion
    For the reasons explained above, the Court ADOPTS
    Magistrate Judge Harvey’s R. & R., see ECF No. 83; GRANTS Dr.
    Jiva’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, see ECF No. 73; and
    DENIES Mr. Wall’s Motion to Vacate Part of the Court’s June 1,
    2021 Order, see ECF No. 85. An appropriate Order accompanies
    this Memorandum Opinion.
    SO ORDERED.
    Signed:    Emmet G. Sullivan
    United States District Judge
    March 27, 2023
    26
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2020-2075

Judges: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Filed Date: 3/27/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/28/2023

Authorities (37)

Singh v. George Washington University , 383 F. Supp. 2d 99 ( 2005 )

Boritz v. United States , 685 F. Supp. 2d 113 ( 2010 )

Roy Bruce Smith v. Ronald Angelone, Director, Virginia ... , 111 F.3d 1126 ( 1997 )

Haines v. Kerner , 92 S. Ct. 594 ( 1972 )

Estate of John Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 808 F. Supp. 2d 1 ( 2011 )

Judicial Watch v. Department of Army , 466 F. Supp. 2d 112 ( 2006 )

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Bender , 127 F.3d 58 ( 1997 )

Washkoviak v. Student Loan Marketing Ass'n , 2006 D.C. App. LEXIS 300 ( 2006 )

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 127 S. Ct. 1955 ( 2007 )

Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937 ( 2009 )

Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges , 339 F. Supp. 2d 26 ( 2004 )

In Re United Mine Workers of America Employee Benefit Plans ... , 854 F. Supp. 914 ( 1994 )

Stephenson v. Cox , 223 F. Supp. 2d 119 ( 2002 )

Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates , 658 F. Supp. 2d 135 ( 2009 )

Biscoe v. Arlington County , 738 F.2d 1352 ( 1984 )

John M. Lee v. Flintkote Company , 593 F.2d 1275 ( 1979 )

Shurtleff v. United States Environmental Protection Agency , 991 F. Supp. 2d 1 ( 2013 )

Margolis v. U-Haul International, Inc. , 818 F. Supp. 2d 91 ( 2011 )

Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237 ( 1987 )

Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg L.L.P. , 786 F. Supp. 2d 240 ( 2011 )

View All Authorities »