Keshtgarpour v. Henry Ford Health System et al
Filing
30
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MANI KESHTGARPOUR,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-cv-12917
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #29)
By order dated September 11, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiff Mani
Keshtgarpour, M.D.’s Complaint on the ground that his claims were barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations (the “Dismissal Order”). (See Dismissal Order,
ECF #22.) Keshtgarpour’s claims arose out of, and related to, his one-year medical
residency with Defendant Henry Ford Health System (“Henry Ford”). In June of
2005 – one month before Keshtgarpour was scheduled to complete the residency
program – Henry Ford suspended Keshtgarpour from the program due to his
consistent poor performance.1 (See Complaint, ECF #1-3 at Pg. ID 309.) When
1
In the Dismissal Order, this Court said that Henry Ford “terminated” Keshtgarpour
from the residency program. (See Dismissal Order, ECF #22 at Pg. ID 696.) In a
letter to Keshtgarpour, Henry Ford actually said that Keshtgarpour was
“suspend[ed]” from the program. (Compl., ECF #1-3 at Pg. ID 309.) But the
suspension lasted through the “duration of [his] contract.” (Id.) As a practical matter,
1
Henry Ford suspended Keshtgarpour, Dr. Peter Coggan, Keshtgarpour’s supervisor,
informed him in writing that “a graduation certificate [for his residency] will not be
issued.” (Id.)
Twelve years later, Keshtgarpour, proceeding pro se, filed his
Complaint in this action. Keshtgarpour seeks “Two Hundred Million U.S. Dollars”
in monetary damages and an order compelling Henry Ford to issue what
Keshtgarpour calls a “certificate of completion.” (Id. at Pg. ID 6.) The Court
concluded that all of Keshtgarpour’s claims and requests for relief were time-barred2
for reasons explained by the assigned Magistrate Judge in his Report and
Recommendation, and it therefore dismissed Keshtgarpour’s Complaint. (See
Dismissal Order, ECF #22.)
Keshtgarpour has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the Dismissal
Order. (See ECF #29.3) For the reasons explained below, the motion is DENIED.
there is no difference between a suspension through the end of the residency program
and termination from the program. In any event, the difference, if any, between a
termination and a suspension through the end of the program does not impact the
analysis of the legal issues before the Court.
2
As the Magistrate Judge explained, the longest possible limitations period for
Keshtgarpour’s claims was six years. (See Report and Recommendation, ECF #17
at Pg. ID 614-15.)
3
The motion is titled a “second” motion for reconsideration, but it is actually
Keshtgarpour’s first substantive request for reconsideration. His earlier “motion for
reconsideration” was a request for permission to seek reconsideration. (See ECF
#24.) Keshtgarpour apparently did not realize that he did not need to seek permission
to file a motion for reconsideration.
2
I
Motions for reconsideration in this Court are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h).
Under that rule, “[a] motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within 14
days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). In
addition:
Generally, and without restricting the Court’s discretion,
the Court will not grant motions for rehearing or
reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a
palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and
other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been
misled but also show that correcting the defect will result
in a different disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
II
Keshtgarpour seeks reconsideration of the Dismissal Order on numerous
grounds.
The Court has carefully considered Keshtgarpour’s arguments and
concludes that none of them show that the Dismissal Order contains palpable defects
or that the correction of any such defects would result in a different disposition of
Henry Ford’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court will not address each
argument Keshtgarpour that raises in his motion. However, the Court will address
his claim that his Complaint is timely based on Henry Ford’s refusal to “reverify” in
2017 that it had agreed to issue him a certificate of completion in 2005.
3
III
Keshtgarpour argues in his motion for reconsideration that the Court erred
when it concluded that (1) Henry Ford refused to issue him a certificate of
completion in 2005 and (2) his claims are based upon that 2005 refusal.
Keshtgarpour says that in 2005, Dr. Coggan made a “preliminary recommendation”
that he not receive a certificate of completion. (Mot., ECF #29 at Pg. ID 720-21.)
But Keshtgarpour insists that Dr. Coggan later “overruled” that “preliminary
recommendation” and determined that Henry Ford would in fact issue him a
certificate of completion. (Id.) He then insists that his claims are based upon Henry
Ford’s refusal in 2017 to “REVERIFY” that it Dr. Coggan agreed to issue him that
certificate in 2005. (See id. at Pg. ID 722.)
The exhibits to Keshtgarpour’s Complaint belie his current claim that Henry
Ford reconsidered and “overruled” its “preliminary” refusal to issue him a certificate
of completion. Henry Ford initially told Keshtgarpour that it would not issue him
such a certificate in the letter – quoted above – from Dr. Coggan on June 2, 2005.
(See Compl., ECF #1-3 at Pg. ID 309.) Then, in a letter dated June 14, 2005, Dr.
John Popovich, Chair of the Department of Medicine, confirmed that he had
“reviewed [Keshtgarpour’s] grievance against dismissal” from the residency
program as recommended by Dr. Coggan and that he “support[ed] the decision of
[Dr. Coggan] to dismiss” Keshtgarpour from the program. (Id. at Pg. ID 310.) Dr.
4
Popovich stressed that Keshtgarpour would not be “allow[ed] to complete” the
program. (Id.) Nothing in either of these letters indicates that there was anything
“preliminary” about Henry Ford’s decision to dismiss Keshtgarpour from the
residency program and not issue him a certificate of completion.
Moreover,
between 2010 and 2012, Keshtgarpour communicated with Henry Ford’s in-house
legal counsel, and she again confirmed that he was “not entitled to a certificate of
completion.” (Id. at Pg. ID 308; see also id. at Pg. ID 306-07.) Simply put, from at
least June of 2005 through 2012, Henry Ford consistently told Keshtgarpour that he
was not entitled to, and would not receive, a certificate indicating that he successfully
completed his residency program.
Keshtgarpour counters that other letters and emails demonstrate that in 2005,
Henry Ford “overruled” its decision to withhold a certificate of completion and
actually decided that it would issue him the certificate. (See Mot., ECF #29 at Pg.
ID 724.) He misreads these communications.
Keshtgarpour first relies upon a recommendation letter written by Dr. Coggan
(the same doctor who suspended Keshtgarpour and told him that he would not be
receiving a certificate of completion) on July 1, 2005. (See Compl., ECF #1-2 at Pg.
ID 249.) This letter does not say that Keshtgarpour successfully completed his
residency program. (See id.) Instead, the letter begins with information about
Keshtgarpour’s background and then notes that he worked hard “to improve his
5
performance.” (Id.) The letter says that Keshtgarpour received “strong ratings for
professionalism,” but it does not say that he actually performed well in any other
area. (Id.) Nor does the letter mention any specific achievements. (See id.) The
letter simply does not indicate in any way that Keshtgarpour earned, was entitled to,
or would be receiving a certificate of completion.
Keshtgarpour next relies upon a letter written by Dr. Coggan on September
22, 2005. (See Compl., ECF #1-2 at Pg. ID 250.) This letter merely lists the
internship rotations that Keshtgarpour completed at Henry Ford. (See id.) It does
not say anything about his performance in the various rotations, nor does it say that
he completed all of the requirements of the residency program. Most importantly, it
does not say that he earned, was entitled to, or would be receiving a certificate of
completion.
Keshtgarpour argues that this letter is tantamount to a statement by Henry
Ford that it had “overruled” its decision to withhold a certificate of completion.
(Mot., ECF #29 at Pg. ID 724-26.) He says that the letter must have that meaning
because a physician is necessarily entitled to a certificate of completion when he
completes the rotations listed in the letter. (See id.) But Keshtgarpour has not cited
evidence in the record that supports or verifies his contention that Henry Ford
residents were automatically entitled to a certificate of completion upon completing
the rotations listed in the letter. Stated another way, he has not presented any
6
evidence that, at Henry Ford, the sole requirement for a certificate of completion
was the completion of the listed rotations. More importantly, he has not presented
any evidence that Henry Ford issued certificates of completion to residents, like him,
who completed the listed rotations but did not do so satisfactorily. Simply put, the
letter listing the rotations that Keshtgarpour completed provides no indication that
Henry Ford had “overruled” its earlier decision to withhold a certificate of
completion based upon his poor performance.4
Finally, Keshtgarpour argues that a 2017 email from the Henry Ford Physician
& Alumni Relations Department confirms that Henry Ford did grant him a certificate
of completion in 2005. (See Mot., ECF #29 at Pg. ID 720.) In the email, a Henry
Ford employee (who is not a physician and who had no apparent connection to
Keshtgarpour’s residency twelve years earlier) writes that “[a]ll physicians who
completed their training at Henry Ford are automatically enrolled as members of the
Alumni Association” and that Keshtgarpour is “coded as an alum” in an Alumni
4
Even if the September 22, 2005, letter could be construed as a statement by Henry
Ford that it would issue Keshtgarpour a certificate of completion, Keshtgarpour’s
claims related to the certificate would still be time-barred. Keshtgarpour insists that
his claim is based upon Henry Ford’s refusal to “reverify” in 2017 that it had agreed
to issue him a certificate of completion in 2005. (Mot., ECF #29 at Pg. ID 722.) But
the exhibits to Keshtgarpour’s Complaint demonstrate that Henry Ford refused to
“reverify” his receipt of the certificate in 2010 and 2011 – more than six years before
he filed this action – and repeatedly maintained that refusal up until the time he filed
this action. (See Compl., ECF #1-3 at Pg. ID 306-08.) Thus, any claim based upon
Henry Ford’s alleged refusal to reverify accrued more than six years before
Keshtgarpour filed this action and is time-barred.
7
Association database. (See Compl., ECF #1-2 at Pg. ID 251.) But an Alumni
Association internal database code is hardly evidence that the physicians supervising
Keshtgarpour’s residency reversed their clearly- and consistently-expressed decision
to withhold a certificate of completion – a decision repeatedly confirmed to
Keshtgarpour by a Henry Ford in-house attorney who specifically inquired into
whether Keshtgarpour had been awarded a certificate of completion.
In sum, the documentary record attached to Keshtgarpour’s Complaint is
crystal clear: since June 2005 Henry Ford has consistently and repeatedly told him
that he was not entitled to, and would not be receiving, a certificate of completion.
Accordingly, his claims in this action challenging Henry Ford’s refusal to issue
and/or reverify his receipt of such a certificate are time-barred.
IV
For all of the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Keshtgarpour’s motion for reconsideration of the Dismissal Order (ECF #29) is
DENIED.
Dated: November 30, 2018
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 30, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(810) 341-9764
9
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?