Collins v. Lakeland Hospitals at Niles and St. Joseph, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 29 and denying 17 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARISSA COLLINS, as Conservator for
JASMINE MARLOWE-COLLINS, a minor,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
-v)
)
)
LAKELAND HOSPITAL AT NILES AND ST.
)
JOSEPH, INC. D/B/A LAKELAND MEDICAL
)
CENTER,
Defendant & Third-Party Plaintiff, )
)
-v)
)
United States of America,
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-193
Hon. Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently pending is a motion to dismiss filed by the United States. (ECF No. 17.)
The Court referred the motion to the magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending
the Court deny the motion. (ECF No. 29.) The United States filed objections. (ECF No.
30.) The Court will adopt the report and recommendation and will deny the motion to
dismiss.
I.
Plaintiff Collins filed this medical malpractice lawsuit the Berrien County, Michigan,
Circuit Court. In January 2018, Defendant Lakeland Hospital filed a third-party complaint
for contribution against two nurses and their employer. Approximately one week later, the
United States removed the action to this Court and filed a motion to substitute itself in place

of the two nurses and their employer. The United States then filed the pending motion to
dismiss asserting that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party
complaint. The United States argues Lakeland Hospital failed to exhaust its administrative
remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a necessary requirement to avoid the doctrine
of sovereign immunity.
The magistrate judge recommends denying the motion. The magistrate judge relies
on an opinion issued by this Court in Wolford v. South Shore Women’s Health Care, P.C.,
No. 1:18-cv-975 (W.D. Mich.) (ECF No. 21 Opinion and Order dated Sept. 25, 2019).
The United States advances two objections. First, the United States asserts Lakeland
must first exhaust its administrative remedies. The United States acknowledges that Wolford
involved similar circumstances and advances this objection largely to preserve the argument
on appeal. The objection is OVERRULED. As part of this argument, the United States
attempts to distinguish Wolford by noting that Lakeland originally filed this lawsuit in federal
court and then voluntarily dismissed that action. The difference does not change the
outcome. The United States filed a motion to dismiss raising multiple arguments. When
Lakeland voluntarily dismissed its first lawsuit, it did not provide a reason for its decision.
The United States also points to the holding in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S.
Ct. 1743, 1745-46 (2019). Home Depot addresses removals of actions when the basis for
removal is a counterclaim, which is not the situation here.
Second, the United States objects to the magistrate judge’s ruling that Lakeland’s
third-party complaint was timely. While the United States disagrees with the magistrate
judge’s reasoning, it also fails to address that reasoning. That is, to grant this request, the

2

Court would have to vacate the State court’s order allowing the third-party complaint and this
Court can tailor the case management order to minimize any prejudice. Accordingly, this
second objection is OVERRULED.
For these reasons, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29) is ADOPTED as
the Opinion of this Court. Third-Party Defendant United State’s motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 17) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 24, 2020

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge

3