Michael Keitz v. Sponsors of Cocaine Research

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00054-GEC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999044874]. Mailed to: M. Keitz. [11-2016]

Appeal: 11-2016

Doc: 19

Filed: 02/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2016

MICHAEL JAMES KEITZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNNAMED SPONSORS OF COCAINE RESEARCH STUDY; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA AND MEDICAL CENTER; UNNAMED
DIRECTOR OF UVA CENTER FOR ADDICTION RESEARCH; UVA CENTER
FOR ADDICTION RESEARCH; UNNAMED #1, MALE NURSE, UVA CARE;
UNNAMED #2 MALE DOCTOR, UVA CARE; UNNAMED #3 FEMALE RESEARCH
ASSISTANT, UVA CARE; UNNAMED #4, 5, 6 MALE E.R. DOCTORS, UVA
MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00054-GEC)

Submitted:

February 29, 2012

Decided:

February 15, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Michael James Keitz, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2016

Doc: 19

Filed: 02/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
In

forma

pauperis

litigant,

Michael

James

Keitz,

brought this action on August 26, 2011, against Unnamed Sponsors
of Cocaine Research Study, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
University of Virginia Medical Center, and several individuals,
alleging

state

law

claims

for

malpractice and technical battery. 1

medical

negligence,

medical

The district court dismissed

Keitz’s claims on September 1, 2011, after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(2006)

review.

After

reviewing

the

record

and

considering

Keitz’s arguments, we affirm in part and vacate in part and
remand to the district court. 2
We discern no error in the district court’s decision
to dismiss Keitz’s technical battery claim as frivolous.

See

Neitzke

FMC

Butner,

v.

Williams,

376

F.3d

490
252,

U.S.

319,

254-55

&

328
n.*

(1989);

Nagy

(4th

Cir.

v.

2004).

1

Because Keitz currently resides in New York State, all of
the defendants appear to be citizens of Virginia, and Keitz
sought $1,000,000 in damages, the district court had diversity
jurisdiction over Keitz’s claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006)
(providing that diversity jurisdiction exists when there is
complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs).
2

During the pendency of this appeal, Keitz noted a separate
appeal (No. 12-1640) in the same district court action. Appeal
No. 12-1640 was subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute,
and Keitz did not file a motion to reopen that appeal.
Accordingly, we now proceed with our disposition of the present
appeal.

2

Appeal: 11-2016

Doc: 19

Accordingly,

Filed: 02/15/2013

we

affirm

that

Pg: 3 of 5

portion

of

the

district

court’s

order.
We

nonetheless

vacate

the

portion

of

the

district

court’s order sua sponte dismissing Kietz’s medical negligence
and medical malpractice claims for allegedly failing to comply
with Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-20.1 (2007).

Under § 8.01-20.1,

Every motion for judgment, counter claim, or third
party claim in a medical malpractice action, at the
time the plaintiff requests service of process upon a
defendant, or requests a defendant to accept service
of process, shall be deemed a certification that the
plaintiff has obtained from an expert witness . . . a
written opinion signed by the expert witness that
. . . the defendant for whom service of process has
been requested deviated from the applicable standard
of care and the deviation was a proximate cause of the
injuries claimed.
Id.

Thus,

plaintiff

if

must,

a

defendant

within

ten

provides
business

a

written

days

of

request,

receiving

a

that

request, “provide the defendant with a certification form that
affirms that the plaintiff had obtained the necessary certifying
expert opinion at the time service was requested[.]”
the

plaintiff

fails

to

obtain

a

necessary

certifying

Id.

If

expert

opinion at the time the plaintiff requested service of process
on the defendant, § 8.01-20.1 directs that the court “impose
sanctions . . . and may dismiss the case with prejudice.”
As

the

district

court

correctly

Id.

recognized,

a

plaintiff need not provide a § 8.01-20.1 certification if the
plaintiff “alleges a medical malpractice action that asserts a
3

Appeal: 11-2016

Doc: 19

theory

of

Filed: 02/15/2013

liability

where

Pg: 4 of 5

expert

testimony

is

unnecessary

because the alleged act of negligence clearly lies within the
range

of

Virginia

the

jury’s

courts

circumstances

common

have

will

knowledge

observed,

expert

action be unnecessary.

and

however,

testimony

in

a

experience.”
that

only

medical

Id.

in

rare

malpractice

See Beverly Enter.-Va., Inc. v. Nichols,

441 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Va. 1994) (noting that only rarely do the
alleged acts of medical negligence fall within the range of a
factfinder’s common knowledge and experience).
the

district

court

correctly

determined

We conclude that

that

whether

the

Defendants committed malpractice or were negligent during the
drug study requires expert testimony.
We

nonetheless

conclude

that

it

was

error

for

the

district court to dismiss Keitz’s complaint based on § 8.0120.1,

because

the

record

reflects

that

Keitz

had

neither

requested service of process upon a defendant nor requested a
defendant to accept service of process.

See Lents v. Vetter, 80

Va. Cir. 268, 2010 WL 7375603, at *2 (Va. Cir. Ct. (Fairfax)
2010)

(holding

verification

of

that

defendant

expert

witness

was

not

entitled

certification

where

to

demand

defendant

voluntarily filed answer without being served with complaint or
requested to formally waive service of process, and recognizing
that

because

plaintiff’s

§ 8.01-20.1

action

as

the

“contemplates
result
4

of

dismissal

noncompliance

of
with

a
the

Appeal: 11-2016

Doc: 19

Filed: 02/15/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

certification — a harsh remedy — the statute is to be read
narrowly”); Bolte v. Williams, 2006 WL 2578371, at *3-*4 (Va.
Cir. Ct. (Fairfax) 2006) (denying motion to dismiss predicated
on

§ 8.01-20.1

where

process,

and

makes

distinction

a

requested

by

plaintiff

acknowledging

the

as

to

did

that
the

plaintiff”)

not

authorize

“[t]he
time

statute

service

(internal

service

of

specifically

of

quotation

process

is

marks

and

citation omitted).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm in part and vacate
in part and remand the matter to the district court for further
proceedings.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

5