Shepeard v. Labette Health Foundation, Inc. et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER sustaining 43 Motion to Dismiss Party; sustaining 14 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; sustaining 18 Motion to Dismiss Party; sustaining 29 Motion to Dismiss; sustaining 29 Motion for Judgment. See order for details. Signed by District Judge Monti L. Belot on 3/30/2012. (aa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

THERESA SHEPEARD, individually,
and as the Administrator of the
Estate of
JOSHUA CARL SHEPEARD, deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
LABETTE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER,
DR. JERRY C. BOUMAN,
DR. MICHAEL J. FARRIS,
and AIR METHODS CORPORATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No.

11-1217-MLB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The following motions are pending before the Court: (1) Dr.
Bouman’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary
Judgment, (Doc. 14); Air Methods Corporation’s (Air Methods) Motion
to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Partial Judgment on the Pleadings
and

Stay,

(Doc.

18);

Dr.

Farris’

Motion

for

Judgment

on

the

Pleadings, (Doc. 29); and Air Methods’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss,
(Doc. 43).

For the reasons stated below, the defendants’ motions are

granted.
I.

Facts
On August 30, 2009 Joshua Shepeard was injured in a motorcycle

accident near Parsons, Labette County, Kansas.

He sustained numerous

injuries, including a deep laceration / partial amputation of the
posterior left knee.
Medical Center.

Joshua was transported to the Labette County

Air Methods transferred Joshua from the Medical

Center to Freeman Health Center in Joplin Missouri.

Joshua died on

the way to Freeman Health Center.
Plaintiff filed this action which includes 5 claims.

The first

claim names all four defendants, and alleges a violation of the
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The second
claim is a medical negligence claim against Labette County Medical
Center.

The third claim is a medical negligence claim against Dr.

Bouman.

The fourth claim is a medical negligence claim against Dr.

Farris.

The fifth claim is a medical negligence claim against Air

Methods.

Plaintiff initially filed identical claims in state court,

but has since dismissed the case.
II. Standard
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is governed by the same standards as
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Nelson v. State Farm Mut.

Auto Ins. Co., 419 F.3d 1117, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005).
To survive a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) a complaint must
contain enough allegations of fact to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.

Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th

Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct.
1955, 1974 (2007)).

All well-pleaded facts and the reasonable

inferences derived from those facts are viewed in the light most
favorable to plaintiff. Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278, 1283 (10th
Cir. 2008).

Conclusory allegations, however, have no bearing upon

this court’s consideration.

Shero v. City of Grove, Okla., 510 F.3d

1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007).

-2-

III.
a.

Discussion

EMTALA
Dr. Bouman, Dr. Farris, and Air Methods all request dismissal

of the EMTALA claim, arguing that EMTALA only applies to hospitals.
EMTALA is not a federal malpractice or a negligence statute.
The Purpose of EMTALA is to ensure that each patient is accorded the
same level of treatment and to prohibit dumping of unstabilized
patients. Repp. V. Anadarko Mun. Hospital, 43 F.3d 519, 522 (10th Cir.
1994).
EMTALA provides for civil penalties for hospitals and physicians
that negligently violate the Act.

42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(1).

In

Delaney v. Cade, 986 F.2d 387 (10th Cir. 1993), the Tenth Circuit
examined this particular section of the statute, and ruled that the
“plain language of the Act indicates individuals can bring civil
actions only against participating hospitals.”

Id. at 394.

In this

decision, the Court considered a number of district court cases
outside the Tenth Circuit that were split on whether the Act applied
to someone other than a hospital.

Id. at 393.

The Court also

considered a Fourth Circuit case that ruled that only the Secretary
of Health and Human Services was allowed to enforce the Act against
a doctor.

Id.

Plaintiff does not dispute any defendants’ claim that EMTALA
does not apply to the doctors or Air Methods.

The Tenth Circuit has

clearly stated that EMTALA does not provide for a cause of action
against the doctors.

This ruling easily extends to Air Methods, as

it is an ambulance service not owned or operated by a hospital.

See

Madison v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1, 1995 WL 396316
-3-

at *2 (E.D.La. June 30, 1995)(EMTALA applies to hospital property
only, including ambulances owned and operated by the hospital); See
also 42 CFR § 489.24 (Comes to the emergency department means ...
patient ... is in a ground or air ambulance owned and operated by the
hospital...). 42 C.F.R. § 489.24 (b)(3).

Plaintiff’s EMTALA claim

(Count 1) against Dr. Farris, Dr. Bouman, and Air Methods is dismissed
for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff has wasted this court’s time and judicial resources by
pursuing these claims. At Defendants’ option, the court will consider
motions for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel.
b.

Supplemental Jurisdiction
Defendants argue the court should not exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the state law medical negligence claims. Defendants
contend that the state law claims predominate and there is no nexus
between the EMTALA claim and the state law claims.
The court seemingly has original jurisdiction over the EMTALA
claim against Labette County Medical Center. At least, Labette County
has yet to file any dispositve motion directed to jurisdictional
issues.

Courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims

that are so related to the claims of original jurisdiction that they
form part of the same case or controversy.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

However, the “district court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim ... if the claim substantially predominates
over the claim or claims over which the district court has original
jurisdiction.”

28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(2).

Factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and
comity should be considered in determining if state law claims
-4-

substantially predominate. Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484
U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). A state law claim that arises from the same
common nucleus of operative facts as the federal claim forms part of
the same case or controversy for purposes of Article III.

United

Inter’l Holdings, Inc. V. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd., 210 F.3d 1207, 1220
(10th Cir. 2000).

The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

is left to the discretion of the court.
IV.

The court declines to do so.

Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dr. Bouman’s Motion to Dismiss, or

In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is sustained.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Farris’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. 29) is sustained.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Air Methods’ Motion to Dismiss or in
the Alternative for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 18) and
the Renewed Motion (Doc. 43) is sustained.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

court

will

not

exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against
Dr. Bouman, Dr. Farris, or Air Methods.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of March 2012, at Wichita, Kansas.

s/ Monti Belot
Monti L. Belot
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-