Becker v. Fannin County, Georgia et al
Filing
207
ORDER APPROVING 204 Report and Recommendations with the additional findings as the Order and Opinion of this Court. The United States' 188 Motion to Set Aside Substitution of the United States for Gayle Mercer and Georgia Mountains Health Se rvices, Inc.; to dismiss the United States and FTCA claims against it; and to permit Plaintiff to revive her tort claims against Gayle Mercer and Georgia Mountains Health Services, Inc. is GRANTED; Plaintiffs 190 Motion for Leave to File Fourth Ame nded Complaint Reinstating Gayle Mercer and Georgia Mountains Health Services as Defendants is GRANTED; the United States is DISMISSED from this action; Plaintiffs [190-1] Fourth Amended Complaint shall be docketed by the Clerk as the operative compl aint in this action; and Ms. Mercer and GMHS are REINSTATED as Defendants in this action, via Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint; and Defendant Mercer and GMHS are ORDERED to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 7/31/2012.(vld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
MARY BECKER, individually and
as Temporary and/or Permanent
Administrator of the Estate of
JASON HEWITT ARMSDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FANNIN COUNTY, GEORGIA,
et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:09-CV-00047-RWS
ORDER
This case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and
Recommendation [204] of Magistrate Judge Susan S. Cole. After reviewing the
Report and Recommendation and the Objections [206] thereto, the Court enters
the following Order.
The critical question raised by Defendants Gayle Mercer and Georgia
Mountains Health Services, Inc. (“GMHS”) is “whether [Health Resources and
Services Administration (“HRSA”)] regulations required GMHS to amend its
2007 Grant Application in order to maintain compliance with applicable scope
of project regulations and the 2007 [Notice of Grant Award (“NGA”)]. These
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Defendants object to the Report and Recommendation relying upon language in
the 2008 Grant Application when deciding whether GMHS was required to
submit a grant amendment. Having reviewed this issue, the Court concludes
that GMHS was required to submit a change of scope application for the 2007
grant year when the services to the jail were added. The Court finds that under
PIN 2002-07, GMHS was required to submit requests for approval of changes
in sites. That same regulation defines a site as “any place where a health center
provides services to a defined. . .population on a regular, scheduled basis.” The
Court finds that providing weekly sick call at the jail is sufficient to classify the
jail as a site under the regulation.
The Report and Recommendation is received with approval and with the
additional finding herein, is made the Order and Opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, the United States’ Motion to Set Aside Substitution of the United
States for Gayle Mercer and Georgia Mountains Health Services, Inc.; to
dismiss the United States and FTCA claims against it; and to permit Plaintiff to
revive her tort claims against Gayle Mercer and Georgia Mountains Health
Services, Inc. [188] is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fourth
Amended Complaint Reinstating Gayle Mercer and Georgia Mountains Health
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Services as Defendants [190] is GRANTED; the United States is DISMISSED
from this action; Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint [190-1] shall be
docketed by the Clerk as the operative complaint in this action; and Ms. Mercer
and GMHS are REINSTATED as Defendants in this action, via Plaintiff’s
Fourth Amended Complaint; and Defendant Mercer and GMHS are
ORDERED to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint within twenty-one
(21) days of the entry of this Order.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of July, 2012.
_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
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?