Williams v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc.

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 4/10/2018: Williams' motion 90 for leave to file a sur-reply will be granted. An order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum. cc: counsel (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00236-CRS

BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.
d/b/a BAPTIST HEALTH LEXINGTON

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case involves a dispute between plaintiff William H. Williams (“Williams”) and
defendant Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. d/b/a Baptist Health Lexington (“BHL”) arising from
BHL’s failure to admit Williams for care on April 4, 2015. ECF No. 1-1, p. 2. BHL moved for
summary judgment, Williams responded, and BHL subsequently replied. ECF Nos. 76, 84, 88.
Now, Williams moves to strike portions of BHL’s reply, or alternatively, moves for leave to file
a sur-reply. ECF No. 90. For the reasons set forth below, Williams’ motion for leave to file a surreply will be granted.
Williams argues that BHL raised the following arguments for the first time in its reply
brief:
(1)

(2)
(3)

(4)

Williams’ emotional distress claim should be dismissed because there is no
medical expert opinion testimony linking Williams’ symptoms of anxiety
to his rejection by BHL;
Williams’ emotional distress claim should be dismissed because a medical
expert is required to opine on emotional distress damages;
Williams’ emotional distress claim should be dismissed because emotional
distress damages may only be awarded where a plaintiff establishes distress
affecting everyday life and requires significant treatment; and
Williams’ punitive damages claim should be dismissed because
compensable damages are necessary before a party may recover punitive
damages in an EMTALA case.
1

The Sixth Circuit has held that “[a]lthough the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
expressly permit the filing of sur-replies, such filings may be allowed in the appropriate
circumstances, especially ‘[w]hen new submissions and/or arguments are included in a reply
brief, and a nonmovant’s ability to respond to the new evidence has been vitiated.’” Key v.
Shelby County, 551 Fed. Appx. 262, 265 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Seay v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 339
F.3d 454, 481 (6th Cir. 2003)).
In the present case, BHL made qualitatively different arguments concerning emotional
distress injuries and punitive damages in the motion for summary judgment and the reply brief.
Thus, the court will allow Williams to file a sur-reply addressing solely these two issues. The
sur-reply shall be filed no later than April 23, 2018.
For the reasons stated above, Williams’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply will be
granted. An order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum.

April 10, 2018

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

2