Brown v. Wisner et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 12/6/2017. (ydm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
MARK WISNER, P.A.
Case No. 17-2344
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff John Brown brings this case against defendants United States of America and Mark
Wisner, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, alleging that
Wisner conducted improper and/or unnecessary physical examinations of plaintiff, subjected plaintiff
to inappropriate sexual comments, and solicited sexual acts. This matter is before the court on
defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). Defendant argues that plaintiff’s
complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the court denies defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff is a veteran who sought treatment at the Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center
(“VA”) located in Leavenworth, Kansas. Wisner treated and provided medical care for plaintiff.
Wisner was a physician’s assistant (“PA”) for the VA, and is a defendant in more than eighty pending
civil suits before this court.
The claim in this case—one for negligence—is similar to one in a number of other cases this
court has considered. See, e.g., Anasazi v. United States, No. 16-2227-CM, 2017 WL 2264441, at *1–
*2 (D. Kan. May 23, 2017); Doe D. E. v. United States, No. 16-2162-CM, 2017 WL 1908591, at *1–
*2 (D. Kan. May 10, 2017). Likewise, the court has set forth the governing legal standards in a
number of other cases involving the same parties and similar claims. The court does not repeat them
here, but applies them as it has in the past. See, e.g., Anasazi, 2017 WL 2264441, at *2; Doe D. E.,
2017 WL 1908591, at *2.
The court is not entirely clear whether plaintiff intends to bring a negligence claim under
theories of both respondeat superior and negligent supervision, or only for negligent supervision.
Defendant has addressed the claim as if it is for both, and plaintiff responds as if it is both. The court
will address the claim as such.
To the extent that plaintiff intends to hold defendant liable under the theory of respondeat
superior, the court’s analysis in other similar cases applies here. See, e.g., Anasazi, 2017 WL 2264441,
at *4–*5; Doe D. E., 2017 WL 1908591, at *3–*4. The court allows the claim to proceed, at least as to
plaintiff’s allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and inappropriate physical exams. The court
incorporates by reference the analysis it has used previously.
As for the negligent supervision claim, the court also has allowed this claim to proceed in other
similar cases. See, e.g., Doe NQ v. United States, No. 17-2187, 2017 WL 4516856, at *4 (D. Kan. Oct.
10, 2017); Anasazi, 2017 WL 2264441, at *7; Doe D. E., 2017 WL 1908591, at *6. For the reasons set
forth fully in these other cases, defendant’s motion is denied with respect to plaintiff’s claim for
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is denied.
Dated this 6th day of December, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Carlos Murguia________________
United States District Judge
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?