Roosevelt v. Smith et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

UN TED STATES DXYSTRCICT OOURT
FOR THE OFSIRICT GF NEW FAMPSH RE

Theodore Roosevelt

v. Civil No. 16- cv- 452- LM

Janet Smith, et al.

REPORT AND REOOMVENDATT ON

Plaintiff, Theodore Roosevelt, brings this action against
Concord Hospital and Janet Smth, PAC. Concord Fbspital has
noved to dismss Roosevelt’s federal claim pursuant to Fed. R
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 9. That notion has been
referred to the undersigned nagistrate j udge for a Report and
Recomendation. For the followng reasons, the district j udge
should dismss Roosevelt’s federal claimand decline to exercise
jurisdiction over his state-lawclains pursuant to 28 US.C. §

1367(c) (3).

Standard of Review

Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual
allegations in the conplaint as true, construe reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and “determne whether the
factual allegations . . . set forth a plausible claimupon which

relief may be granted.” Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 772

F.3d 63, 71 (1st Gir. 2014) (citation and quotation narks

omitted). 	A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). 	Analyzing plausibility is “a context-specific task” in
which the court relies on its “judicial experience and common
sense.” 	Id. at 679. 	“A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and . . . however inartfully pleaded, must
be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” 	Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
Background
Roosevelt has alleged the following facts: on October 10,
2016, Roosevelt went to the Concord Hospital Emergency
Department because he had severe pain in his left knee.
Roosevelt asked the nurse for an injection and for pain
medication. The nurse gave him an injection, but told Roosevelt
that Janet Smith would not provide him with pain medication, and
that “the shot would do it.” As of the date Roosevelt filed his
complaint, he continued to have severe pain in his left knee
that kept him up at night.
After preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), the court concluded that Roosevelt had asserted a
2
Case 1:16-cv-00452-LM Document 34 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 8

claim that Concord Hospital did not stabilize Roosevelt’s knee
pain on October 10, 2016, in violation of the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. §
1395dd. 	See Oct. 31, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 3). 	The court
further concluded that Roosevelt had asserted state-law medical
malpractice claims against both Concord Hospital and
Smith. 	See id. 	The court directed service of the federal claim
on Concord Hospital and the state-law claims on both
defendants. 	Id. at 2–3. 	The court reached this conclusion
“[w]ithout prejudice to defendants’ ability to move to dismiss
those claims upon any proper basis . . . .” 	Id. at 3.
Concord Hospital filed the instant motion on November 21,
2016. Roosevelt did not file an objection. 	On February 14,
2017, the court granted Roosevelt until March 17, 2017, to file
an amended complaint to state an EMTALA claim. 	The court
specifically noted that any such amended complaint:
must describe the condition of plaintiff’s knee when he
arrived at Concord Hospital on October 10, 2016, including,
for example, the level of pain he felt; what effect, if
any, the injection had on this condition and how long that
effect lasted; and the condition of his knee, including the
level of pain he felt, at the time he left the Emergency
Department on October 10, 2016.
Feb. 14, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 29) at 2–3.
Roosevelt filed an amended complaint on March 2, 2017. 	See
Doc. No. 31. 	In the fact section of this complaint, Roosevelt
alleges “Same as the last one. 	Nothing [has] change[d].” 	Id.
3
Case 1:16-cv-00452-LM Document 34 Filed 03/21/17 Page 3 of 8

at 2. 	He has not alleged any other facts in his amended
complaint.1
Discussion
Concord Hospital argues, among other things, that Roosevelt
has not adequately alleged that the injection he received from
Concord Hospital on October 10, 2016, failed to stabilize his
condition prior to release. 	The court agrees.
“EMTALA is designed to prevent hospital emergency rooms
from refusing to accept or treat patients with emergency
conditions if the patient does not have medical
insurance.” 	Alvarez-Torres v. Ryder Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 582 F.3d
47, 51 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Correa v. Hosp. San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 1189 (1st
Cir. 1995)). 	Under EMTALA, covered facilities have a duty to
(1) provide an “appropriate medical screening examination” for
those who come to the emergency room seeking treatment, and (2)
provide, in certain circumstances, “such further medical
examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize
1 In his amended complaint, Roosevelt also renews his
accusation of racial bias by this court. 	Id. at 3. 	The court
addressed this accusation when previously raised by Roosevelt in
the context of a different motion. 	See Feb. 16, 2017 Order
(Doc. No. 30) at n. 1. 	Now, as then, this allegation is
unsupported and unfounded. 	Cf. Roosevelt v. 	Johnstone, No. 17-
cv-001-JJM (D.N.H. Jan. 19, 2017) (dismissing similar claim).
Thus, I again find no basis to recuse myself from this case.
See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
4
Case 1:16-cv-00452-LM Document 34 Filed 03/21/17 Page 4 of 8

the medical condition.” 	42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a), (b)(1)(A); see
also Alvarez-Torres, 582 F.3d at 51. 	“EMTALA does not create a
federal cause of action for medical malpractice.” 	Cruz-Vazquez
v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp. Inc., 717 F.3d 63, 67 (1st Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted).
To establish a violation of EMTALA, a plaintiff must show
(1) that the hospital is a participating hospital covered by the
statute that operates an emergency department; (2) that the
plaintiff arrived at the hospital seeking treatment; and (3)
that the hospital either (a) did not afford the plaintiff an
appropriate screening in order to determine if he had an
emergency medical condition ("inadequate screening”), or (b)
released or improvidently transferred the patient without first
stabilizing an emergency medical condition (“failure to
stabilize”). 	Cruz-Vazquez, 717 F.3d at 69. 	There is no dispute
at present that the first and second of these elements are
satisfied in the present case.
Roosevelt’s complaint and amended complaint, when construed
liberally, fail to state a claim under EMTALA for failure to
stabilize. 	Though Roosevelt has alleged that he was in severe
pain when he sought treatment from Concord Hospital, he has not
alleged facts to support a reasonable inference that the
treatment he received — namely, the injection — failed to
adequately stabilize his condition prior to release. 	As
5
Case 1:16-cv-00452-LM Document 34 Filed 03/21/17 Page 5 of 8

Roosevelt was granted the opportunity to amend his complaint to
include these facts, but failed to do so, the court recommends
that the district judge dismiss Roosevelt’s EMTALA claim against
Concord Hospital.
Should the district judge accept this recommendation and
dismiss Roosevelt’s EMTALA claim, the court further recommends
that the district judge decline jurisdiction over Roosevelt’s
state-law claims against Concord Hospital and Smith pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 	See id.; see also Camelio v. Am. Fed’n,
137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding that a district court
may decline jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which
it has original jurisdiction).
Finally, should the district judge approve this Report and
Recommendation, the court recommends that Concord Hospital’s
supplemental motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
Doc. No. 33, be denied as moot.2
2 Typically, when a party files an amended complaint, any
motions to dismiss pending when that amended complaint is filed
are automatically denied without prejudice. 	LR 15.1(c). 	This
is not the case here, however, because in the February 14, 2017
Order, the court expressly reserved the right to recommend
dismissal under Concord Hospital’s original motion to dismiss,
stating that if Roosevelt “fail[ed] to file an amended complaint
that states an EMTALA claim within the time allowed, then the
magistrate judge may recommend [dismissal].” 	Id. at 3 (emphasis
added). 	As discussed above, Roosevelt failed to comply with
this requirement. 	Thus, the court recommends dismissal pursuant
to that original motion.
6
Case 1:16-cv-00452-LM Document 34 Filed 03/21/17 Page 6 of 8

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss Roosevelt’s EMTALA claim against Concord Hospital
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim and decline jurisdiction over the remaining state-law
claims against Concord Hospital and Smith pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3). 	Concord Hospital’s supplemental motion to dismiss
should be denied as moot.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 21, 2017
cc: 	Theodore Roosevelt, pro se
Rose Marie Joly, Esq.
W. Kirk Abbot, Jr., Esq.
Jonathan A. Lax, Esq.
7
Case 1:16-cv-00452-LM Document 34 Filed 03/21/17 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:16-cv-00452-LM Document 34 Filed 03/21/17 Page 8 of 8