Bern et al v. HCA-HealthONE, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Nina Y. Wang
Civil Action No. 23-cv-00304-NYW-KAS
LAUREN BERN a/k/a LAUREN BRITTON; and
JOSHUA BRITTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HCA-HEALTHONE LLC, d/b/a SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER;
RADIOLOGY IMAGING ASSOCIATES, P.C., d/b/a RIA NEUROVASCULAR a/k/a RIA
NEUROVASCULAR SURGICAL SERVICES, LLC;
MEDICAL IMAGING OF COLORADO LLC; and
RICHARD BELLON, MD,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel a More Definite Answer
from Defendants Radiology Imaging Associates, P.C., Medical Imaging of Colorado, LLC, and
Richard Bellon, M.D. (“Motion to Compel” or “Motion”). [Doc. 24, filed April 13, 2023]. Upon
review of the Motion and the applicable law, for the reasons that follow, the Motion is respectfully
DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from the allegedly deficient medical care that Plaintiff Lauren Bern a/k/a
Lauren Britton (“Ms. Bern”) received, which caused her to sustain a stroke and ultimately resulted
in her suffering from continuing “locked-in” syndrome, a condition characterized by the complete
paralysis of all voluntary muscles in the body, save for those controlling eye movement, while
cognitive function remains intact. See [Doc. 24 at 2]; [Doc. 1 at ¶ 104]. Ms. Bern and her husband,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00304-NYW-KAS Document 54 filed 10/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 6

2
Plaintiff Joshua Britton (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), have sued the various medical providers that,
in their view, failed to provide Ms. Bern with adequate care, leading to her current neurologic
impairment. See generally [Doc. 1]. Those Defendants include Radiology Imaging Associates,
P.C. (“RIA”), Medical Imaging of Colorado, LLC (“MIC”), and Richard Bellon, M.D. (“Dr.
Bellon” and, collectively, “RIA Defendants”).1
In support of their claims against RIA Defendants, Plaintiffs set forth their factual
allegations in 115 numbered paragraphs in their Complaint. 	[Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 1–115]. 	The RIA
Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint, [Doc. 21], and in doing so, provided the following
responses to Plaintiffs’ factual allegations:
3. 	Defendants RIA, MIC, and Dr. Bellon admit that Plaintiff Lauren Bern
Received medical care from Dr. Bellon as is generally reflected in the
medical records.
4. 	Regarding Plaintiffs’ allegations that purport to cite to the medical records,
the medical records speak for themselves. 	To the extent Plaintiffs’
allegations are accurate statements from the medical records, Defendants
RIA, MIC and Dr. Bellon admit them. However, Defendants RIA, MIC and
Dr. Bellon deny the characterizations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint about the
records and the care provided, note that the citations to the record are not
within proper context and are incomplete, and Defendants RIA, MIC and
Dr. Bellon object to Plaintiffs’ citation to certain records while omitting
others. Other than to the extent that they may accurately reflect statements
in the medical records, Defendants RIA, MIC and Dr. Bellon deny the
allegations of paragraphs 9−115 affirmatively or for lack of sufficient
information and for the above-stated reasons.
5. 	Regarding paragraphs 29–115, Defendant Dr. 	Bellon denies he was
negligent in his care and treatment of Plaintiff Lauren Bern, denies he
caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’ claimed damages, and denies Plaintiffs’
claimed injuries, damages, and losses. Defendants RIA and MIC deny they
provided care and treatment to Lauren Bern. 	As entities and under the
corporate practice of medicine doctrine, they cannot provide medical care
and treatment and deny any and all allegations suggesting the contrary.
1 Defendants also include HCA-HealthOne, LLC, d/b/a Swedish Medical Center (“Swedish”),
which filed a separate Answer. 	[Doc. 25]. 	Plaintiffs have not challenged the sufficiency of
Swedish’s Answer.
Case No. 1:23-cv-00304-NYW-KAS Document 54 filed 10/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 6

3
Also, assuming there would be a legal and factual basis to sue the Defendant
corporate entities, which is denied, Defendant MIC is not a properly named
Defendant. It is a joint venture relating to Sally Jobe Imaging centers, which
centers had nothing to do with Ms. Bern’s care in any way.
[Doc. 21 at ¶¶ 3–5].
Finding the RIA Defendants’ responses to their allegations lacking, Plaintiffs filed the
instant Motion to Compel. [Doc. 24]. The RIA Defendants have filed a Response in which they
oppose the requested relief, [Doc. 27], and Plaintiffs have filed a Reply, [Doc. 32]. Accordingly,
the matter is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs ask this Court to order the RIA Defendants “to provide a more definite Answer,
containing responsive, non-evasive, and specific admissions or denials” to the paragraphs setting
forth “General Allegations” in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. [Doc. 24 at 1]. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue
that in answering the Complaint, the RIA Defendants failed to comply with Rule 8(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,2 which requires a defendant to respond to each allegation
2 Although the Parties, at times, cite to the parallel Rule 8(b) of the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure, see, e.g., [Doc. 26 at 2 (“Plaintiffs now assert that Defendants’ Answer is insufficient
under Colorado law . . . .”)]; [Doc. 32 at 8 (invoking Rule 8(b) of the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure)], the Court observes that in diversity cases, like this one, “the Erie doctrine instructs
that federal courts must apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.” 	Racher v.
Westlake Nursing Home Ltd. P’Ship, 871 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10th Cir. 2017). 	The Tenth Circuit
has explained that “[i]f a federal rule of civil procedure answers the question in dispute, that rule
governs our decision so long as it does not exceed statutory authorization or Congress’s
rulemaking power.” Id. (cleaned up).
“Where then, as here, a federal procedural rule governs the question at issue, that rule
controls—notwithstanding state law—so long as the federal rule is a valid exercise of authority
given to the Supreme Court to enact federal rules of civil procedure pursuant to the Rules Enabling
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072.” Id. at 1163–64 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Court finds
that Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—a rule that merely concerns the manner of
pleading and, in doing so, does not “abridge, enlarge or modify a substantive right,” see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2072(b)—is a valid exercise of the rulemaking authority granted by Congress to the Supreme
Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act. 	Cf. Ipock v. Manor Care of Tulsa OK, LLC, 274 F.
Supp. 1249, 1255 (N.D. Okla. 2017) (finding that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Case No. 1:23-cv-00304-NYW-KAS Document 54 filed 10/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 6

4
asserted against it with an admission, denial, or statement that the defendant lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the allegation’s truth, which has the effect of a denial.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1), (5); see also Kassa v. Plans Admin. Comm. of Citigroup, Inc., No. CIV
10-0933 JB/ACT, 2011 WL 13289818, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2011). Instead, Plaintiffs contend,
the RIA Defendants impermissibly “deflect[] to the medical records,” [Doc. 24 at 4], by stating
that “the medical records speak for themselves” and by admitting to Plaintiffs’ allegations only “to
the extent that they may accurately reflect statements in the medical records,” [Doc. 21 at ¶ 4].
Additionally, Plaintiffs take issue with the RIA Defendants’ attempt to respond to Plaintiffs’
“factual allegations” with what appear to be legal arguments. See [Doc. 24 at 6 (citing [Doc. 21
at ¶ 5]) (emphasis omitted)].
At the outset, the Court observes that Rule 8 provides no explicit mechanism for
compelling a more definite answer from the RIA Defendants.3 See Christensen Bldg. Grp., LLC v.
Nuclear Waste P’ship LLC, No. 20-1288 JCH/GBW, 2021 WL 4147720, at *2 (D.N.M. Apr. 2,
2021). 	Nor may a party obtain such relief through a “motion for a more definite statement”
pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By its terms, Rule 12(e) permits a
party to “move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is
allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) (emphasis added). Because a plaintiff may only respond to an answer when
was valid under the Rules Enabling Act as it “set[s] out requirements for how parties must present
their claims and defenses, not what law will apply to those claims and defenses”). Therefore, the
Court concludes that Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not the Colorado Rules of
Civil Procedure, controls.
3 Nor does Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—the other provision invoked by
Plaintiffs, see [Doc. 24 at 3–4]—explicitly authorize the remedy Plaintiffs seek. 	Rule 1 merely
sets forth the “scope and purpose” of the Federal Rules and directs that “they should be construed,
administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Case No. 1:23-cv-00304-NYW-KAS Document 54 filed 10/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 6

5
authorized to do so by court order, when, as here, a plaintiff has not requested leave to reply to a
defendant’s answer and the court has not granted such leave sua sponte, the answer is not a
pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed under Rule 12(e). See Ross v. Sharp One, Inc.,
No. 19-2293-KHV, 2019 WL 5188673, at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
7(a)(7)); see also Martinez v. Naranjo, 328 F.R.D. 581, 597 (D.N.M. 2018) (collecting cases).
Nevertheless, faced with similar requests, district courts have used “alternative vehicles” to cure
defective answers, such as ordering defendants to amend their answers as an alternative to the
more drastic remedy of striking the pleading and deeming the corresponding allegations admitted.
Christensen, 2021 WL 4147720, at *2 (collecting cases).
The Court here finds that the RIA Defendants’ Answer minimally complies with the
requirements of Rule 8(b). Although Rule 8(b) directs defendants to “admit or deny the allegations
asserted against [them] by an opposing party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(B), a defendant may, in
good faith, meet this requirement by “generally deny[ing] all [allegations] except those specifically
admitted,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3); see also Kassa, 2011 WL 13289818, at *4. To be sure, the RIA
Defendants’ statement that the “medical records speak for themselves” is not a response permitted
by Rule 8(b), see Christensen Bldg. Grp., LLC, 2021 WL 4147720, at *3, and their purported
admission of any allegations that accurately reflect the medical records, see [Doc. 21 at ¶ 3], is
likely too vague to be responsive. But the RIA Defendants’ general denial of “the allegations of
paragraphs 9–115,” [Doc. 21 at ¶ 3], is sufficient to deny all allegations except those specifically
admitted. 	See, e.g., Vreeland v. First Savings Bank, No. 15-cv-0993 LAM/SMV, 2016 WL
3460761, at *2 (D.N.M. Feb. 5, 2016) (“[A] defendant’s general denial is sufficient to deny all
allegations that are not specifically admitted.”); Lane v. Page, 272 F.R.D. 581, 603 (D.N.M. 2011).
And the effect of this general denial is not negated by the RIA Defendants’ responses to some
Case No. 1:23-cv-00304-NYW-KAS Document 54 filed 10/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 6

6
allegations in the Complaint, even if those “specific responses were insufficient.” Id. (quoting N.
New Mexicans Protecting Land Water & Rights v. United States, No. CIV 15–0559 JB/LF, 2015
WL 8329509, at *11 (D.N.M. Dec. 4, 2015) (“[E]ven if the Defendants’ specific responses were
insufficient, 	a 	defendant’s 	‘boilerplate’ 	general 	denial 	is 	sufficient 	to 	deny 	all 	of 	the
allegations.’”)). 	Thus, the Court finds that the RIA Defendants’ general denial “is sufficient to
satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(b), as it fills in the gaps in Defendant[s’] specific
responses.” Christensen Blg. Grp., LLC, 2021 WL 4147720, at *3. To the extent that Plaintiffs
seek specific information and/or admissions regarding various factual assertions, they may avail
themselves of the appropriate discovery vehicles pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, the Court respectfully DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, [Doc. 24].
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) 	The Motion to Compel a More Definite Answer from Defendants Radiology
Imaging Associates, P.C., Medical Imaging of Colorado, LLC, and Richard Bellon,
M.D., [Doc. 24], is DENIED.
DATED: October 6, 2023 	BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Nina Y. Wang
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:23-cv-00304-NYW-KAS Document 54 filed 10/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 6