Moraes v. Mascara et al
Filing
108
Order Granting Defendant New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/5/2013. (sk00)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 12-cv-14155-KMM
ARTHUR MORAES, as Personal Representative
of the ESTATE OF MARIANGELA
WOYCENKO, deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE COAST,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant New Horizons of the Treasure
Coast, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 100). No response was filed and
the time in which to do so has passed.1 On August 1, 2013, Defendant filed a Notice of Filing
Proposed Order Granting New Horizons of the Treasure Coast’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF No. 107). UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of
the Record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, this Court enters the following
Order.
I.
BACKGROUND
This is a wrongful death action brought by Plaintiff, as personal representative of the
estate of Mariangela Woycenko (“the Decedent”). See generally Am. Compl. (ECF No. 45).
Local Rule 7.1(C) provides, in relevant part: “Each party opposing a motion shall serve an
opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen days after service of the motion as
computed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to do so may be deemed sufficient
cause for granting the motion by default.”
1
Plaintiff is the son of the Decedent, who committed suicide in the St. Lucie County jail while she
was a pretrial detainee. See id. at ¶¶ 7–8, 25, 50, 92. Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Circuit
Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County, Florida. Notice of Removal
(ECF No. 1), at 1. The suit was timely removed to this Court. Id. On December 3, 2012,
Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, which alleges various civil rights violations and
negligence claims against twelve defendants. See generally Am. Compl. Plaintiff brings suit
against Defendant New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc. (“New Horizons”) for negligence
under Florida law (Count VII). See id. at ¶¶ 134–137.
Plaintiff alleges the following relevant facts. On or about April 11, 2010, the Decedent
experienced an outbreak of mental illness while in a hospital emergency room. Am. Compl., at ¶
30. Port St. Lucie police subsequently involuntarily committed the Decedent to an inpatient
facility, New Horizons, pursuant to the Florida Baker Act. Id. at ¶¶ 30–31. The Decedent
refused to sign a consent for treatment or informed consent form. Id. at ¶ 32. The Decedent
further indicated that she believed her roommate was trying to poison her and that the facility
should not “send a killer to my room!” Id. at ¶¶ 33, 35. A registered nurse noted that the
Decedent had delusions of persecution but did not exhibit homicidal or suicidal ideations. Id. at
¶ 34.
On April 12 at 2 p.m. the Decedent was first evaluated by Dr. Sureshchandra Desai
(“Desai”). Id., at ¶ 37. Desai determined that the Decedent was not competent to provide
informed consent for treatment and that she should remain admitted under the Baker Act. Id. at
¶¶ 38–39. Later that day at 5 p.m., Desai changed course and approved the Decedent’s release as
it was his impression that being in the facility would increase her paranoia. Id. at ¶ 41. An hour
later, the Decedent was released into the custody of her eighteen-year-old son, the Plaintiff, with
2
a prescription for an anti-psychotic medication. Id. at ¶ 43. Plaintiff allowed the Decedent to
drive and she immediately began driving extremely erratically and dangerously at high speeds.
Id. at ¶ 44. A bystander called 911 at Plaintiff’s request. Id. The police arrived by the roadside
and took the Decedent back into custody pursuant to the Baker Act. Id. at ¶¶ 45–47. By 6:30
p.m., the Decedent was en route to New Horizons when she attacked the police officers. Id. at ¶¶
47–49. The Decedent was arrested and taken to jail for resisting with violence and battery on a
law enforcement officer. Id. at ¶ 50. Once in jail, the Decedent was placed in the infirmary for
observation. Id. at ¶ 52. The Decedent committed suicide in her cell the next day. Id. at ¶¶ 79,
92.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), “after 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). “Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., 404 F.3d 1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The
standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is “almost identical to that used to
decide motions to dismiss.” Doe v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 815 F. Supp. 1448, 1449 (S.D. Fla.
1992) (citing Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970, 974 (S.D. Fla. 1986)).
Therefore, all facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true and viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Taylor, 405 F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005).
III.
ANALYSIS
New Horizons now moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that it owed no legal
duty to the Decedent under Florida law. Mot., at 3. On May 13, 2013, this Court entered an
3
order granting Defendant Desai’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice on the basis that Desai owed
no duty to the Decedent under Florida law to foresee and prevent her suicide. See Order
Granting Sureshchandra N. Desai’s Motion to Dismiss, at 7 (ECF No. 97). Therein, this Court
noted that Florida case law supports the proposition that psychiatrists cannot be held liable for
the discharge of patients who later injure themselves while in the care of others. Id. at 5 (citing
Tuten v. Fariborzian, 84 So.3d 1063, 1067 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)). Defendant New Horizons
now moves for judgment on the pleadings on the same grounds. Mot., at 3. Defendant argues,
“Certainly, New Horizons cannot be held liable for Dr. Desai’s treatment of the Decedent where
this Court has ruled that Dr. Desai himself owed no duty to the Decedent.” Id., at 4. This Court
agrees.
Here, New Horizons, the psychiatric facility that employed Dr. Desai, had no duty to
keep Defendant admitted. See Tuten, 84 So.3d at 1067 (holding that mental health facility had
no common law duty to keep patient involuntarily committed); see also Paddock v. Chacko, 522
So.2d 410, 417 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988) (finding that a psychiatrist “had no duty to take the
plaintiff into his custody to prevent her from inflicting injury upon herself”). “[B]ecause the
future behavior of a psychiatric patient is unknowable, under Florida law risk of harm is not
foreseeable and therefore no duty exists . . . .” Tuten, 84 So.3d at 1068. Accordingly, Plaintiff
has failed to allege facts that give rise to any cognizable legal duty owed by New Horizons to the
Decedent under Florida law. Plaintiff’s negligence action therefore must fail. New Horizons is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
4
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant New Horizons of the Treasure Coast,
Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 100) is hereby GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____ day of August,
15th
2013.
________________________________
K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
All counsel of record
5
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?