Szymborski v. Spring Mountain Treatment Center et al
Filing
23
ORDER that 13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint fails as a matter of law. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/28/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
LEE E. SZYMBORSKI,
4
5
6
7
8
9
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
SPRING MOUNTAIN TREATMENT
)
CENTER, DARRYL DUBROCA in his
)
official capacity, DOES I-XX, inclusive, and, )
ROE CORPORATIONS I-XX, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No.: 2:15-cv-00889-GMN-CWH
ORDER
10
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) filed by
11
12
Defendant Spring Mountain Treatment Center and Defendant Darryl Dubroca in his official
13
capacity (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff Lee E. Szymborski (“Plaintiff”) filed a
14
Response (ECF No. 20), and Defendants filed a Reply (ECF No. 22). For the reasons discussed
15
below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
16
I.
BACKGROUND
This case centers upon Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants improperly discharged
17
18
Plaintiff’s son, Sean, to Plaintiff’s home when Plaintiff was not present. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–2, ECF
19
No. 7). Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ improper discharge violates 15 U.S.C. § 1395dd, the
20
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), which requires a
21
hospital’s medical staff “stabilize the patient before transferring or discharging the patient.”
22
23
(See Compl. ¶¶ 1–2). Plaintiff requests damages in excess of two billion dollars. (Id. at 4:16–
21).
24
25
Page 1 of 5
1
2
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the
3
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
4
affidavits, if any, show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
5
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a). Material facts are those that
6
may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
7
(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a
8
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. “Summary judgment is
9
inappropriate if reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party,
10
could return a verdict in the nonmoving party’s favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship., 521
11
F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103–04
12
(9th Cir. 1999)). A principal purpose of summary judgment is to “isolate and dispose of
13
factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–324 (1986).
14
In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When
15
the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come
16
forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went
17
uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing
18
the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp.
19
Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In
20
contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the
21
moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an
22
essential element of the nonmoving party’s case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving
23
party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case
24
on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323–
25
24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and
Page 2 of 5
1
the court need not consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
2
398 U.S. 144, 159–60 (1970).
3
If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing
4
party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
5
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute,
6
the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is
7
sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the
8
parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors
9
Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid
10
summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual
11
data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go
12
beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing
13
competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.
14
At summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the
15
truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
16
The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn
17
in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is
18
not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249–50.
19
III.
20
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue Plaintiff’s sole claim against them, “Clarified EMTALA Violations,”
21
fails because Defendant Spring Mountain Treatment Center does not have an emergency
22
department and does not provide emergency services, and because Defendant Darryl Dubroca
23
is an individual rather than a hospital and, accordingly, cannot be found liable for EMTALA
24
violations under the relevant statute. (Mot. Summ. J. 3:1–7, ECF No. 13).
25
Page 3 of 5
1
Pursuant to EMTALA, “If an individual seeks emergency care from a hospital with an
2
emergency room and if that hospital participates in the Medicare program, then ‘the hospital
3
must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the
4
hospital’s emergency department ... to determine whether or not an emergency medical
5
condition ... exists.’” Bryant v. Adventist Health System West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir.
6
2002) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a)). If the hospital’s medical staff determines that there is
7
an emergency medical condition, then the staff generally must “stabilize the patient before
8
transferring or discharging the patient.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(b)(1)).
9
Here, Defendant Spring Mountain Treatment Center is a psychiatric hospital. (Dubroca
10
Decl. ¶1, Ex. A to Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 13). It does not currently, nor has it ever had a
11
hospital emergency room. (Id. at ¶¶ 2–3). Additionally, Spring Mountain Treatment Center is
12
not licensed by the State of Nevada as an emergency room or emergency department, posts a
13
sign at its facility stating it is not an emergency room, and does not hold itself out to the public
14
as providing care for emergency medical conditions on an urgent basis without a previously
15
scheduled appointment. (Dubroca Decl. ¶¶ 2–4, Ex. A to Reply, ECF No. 22). Therefore,
16
Defendant Spring Mountain Treatment Center is not subject to EMTALA’s provision which
17
prohibits a hospital’s medical staff from transferring or discharing a patient before that patient’s
18
medical condition is stabilized. See Correa v. Hospital San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 1190 (1st
19
Cir. 1995) (“To establish an EMTALA violation, a plaintiff must show that . . . the hospital is a
20
participating hospital, covered by EMTALA, that operates an emergency department (or an
21
equivalent treatment facility).”). Plaintiff has provided the Court with documents explaining
22
Spring Mountain Treatment Center’s Adult In Patient Program, (Ex. A-1 to Resp. to Mot.
23
Summ. J., ECF No. 20-1), as well as an article detailing the implications for hospitals and
24
physicians regarding EMTALA’s enactment, (Zibulewsky Article, Ex. A to Am. Compl., ECF
25
No. 7-1). However, Plaintiff does not provide the Court with any evidence suggesting Spring
Page 4 of 5
1
Mountain Treatment Center is a hospital with an emergency department, or that Spring
2
Mountain Treatment Center provides any emergency medical treatment. Because EMTALA
3
applies to “a hospital with a hospital emergency department,” Plaintiff has not shown any
4
genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Spring Mountain Treatment Center is subject
5
to liability pursuant to EMTALA. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a).
Further, regarding Plaintiff’s claim as it relates to Defendant Darryl Dubroca,
6
7
EMTALA’s “Civil Enforcement” provisions only allow an individual to recover damages
8
against a participating hospital, not another individual. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(C)(2)(A). As such,
9
Defendant Darry Dubroca is not liable to Plaintiff under EMTALA’s “Civil Enforcement”
10
provisions. Accordingly, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendants are
11
subject to liability under EMTALA, and summary judgment is granted in Defendants’ favor as
12
to Plaintiff’s sole claim of “clarified EMTALA violations.”
13
IV.
14
15
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails as a matter of law.
16
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
17
28
DATED this _____ day of October, 2015.
18
19
20
21
22
23
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
24
25
Page 5 of 5
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?