Thomas v. Family Healthcare Network et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting Petition to Substitute 26 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/25/2024. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEANNE THOMAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01610-KES-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO SUBSTITUTE v. (ECF No. 26.) 13 FAMILY HEALTHCARE NETWORK, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is the United States of America’s notice and petition to substitute parties. (ECF No. 26.) The United States has recently discovered that Defendant Family Health Care Network was a public or non-profit entity deemed by the Department of Health and Human Services to be an employee of the Public Health Service, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 223(g). Moreover, Defendant Narwhals Mating, M.D., was an employee of Family Health Care Network and was therefore a covered person within the scope of the statutorily deemed federal employment as an employee of the Public Health Network. The United States have provided a formal certification of their deemed employment and scope of employment. (ECF No. 26-1.) As the United States notes, the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act provides that upon such certification, the remedy “. . . shall be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding to the same extent as the remedy against the United States . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 233(g)(1)(A). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY GRANTS the petition. (ECF No. 26.) Pursuant to 42 1 2 U.S.C. § 233(g)(1)(A), the United States of America is hereby SUBSTITUTED for Defendants 3 Family Healthcare Network and Narwhals Mating, M.D. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 25, 2024 STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?