Shipman, Dennis v. Logistics Health, Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/28/2016. (jef),(ps) [Transferred from Wisconsin Western on 4/29/2016.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DENNIS SHIPMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION & ORDER
14-cv-651-jdp

LOGISTICS HEALTH, INC.,
Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff Dennis Shipman has attempted to sue defendant Logistics Health,
Inc., for declining to certify his healthcare claim without providing him an appeal hearing. He
seeks $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1,500,000 in punitive damages. I dismissed
plaintiff’s first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, but allowed him
leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. 6. Plaintiff has filed a second amended
complaint, Dkt. 7, and a supporting brief, Dkt. 8. After considering plaintiff’s filings, I
understand that his claims arise out of injuries that he sustained while serving as a first
responder on 9/11. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over those claims. Accordingly, I will transfer the case
there.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
The following facts are drawn from plaintiff’s second amended complaint and from
publicly available resources about the World Trade Center Health Program.
Plaintiff was a first responder at ground zero on 9/11. At some point thereafter, he
submitted a claim to defendant regarding injuries that he suffered that day. Plaintiff alleges

that defendant contracts with the World Trade Center Health Program, in partnership with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, to facilitate medical care for those affected by 9/11. These programs were
established under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSSA).
Pub. L. No. 107-42, §§ 401-06, 115 Stat. 230 (2001) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C.
§ 40101).
Defendant certified that plaintiff’s mental or psychological disability was related to his
experience on 9/11, but declined to certify that his physical injury claim was similarly related.
In making its determination, defendant relied on the assessment of multiple doctors
employed by the World Trade Center Health Program. Defendant then denied plaintiff an
appeal hearing. The effect of defendant’s determination was a denial of necessary medical
treatment for plaintiff. Similarly, the Victim Compensation Fund denied another of
plaintiff’s claims.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff alleges constitutional due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Plaintiff also mentions
constitutional equal protection violations, retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, violations of “Chapter 5 § 500,” and conspiracy. He
contends that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, although state law claims
may proceed in federal court only under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
However, the ATSSSA vests the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York with “original and exclusive jurisdiction over all actions brought for any

2

claim (including any claim for loss of property, personal injury, or death) resulting from or
relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001.” ATSSSA § 408(b)(3);
see also In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 521 F.3d 169, 174 (2d Cir. 2008). The
language “resulting from or relating to” is expansive and includes claims relating to injuries
sustained that day, like plaintiff’s claims. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Bush, 367 F. Supp. 2d 765,
768-69 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (transferring a similar case to the Southern District of New York for
resolution). Plaintiff’s claims result from the attacks on 9/11. Accordingly, this court lacks
jurisdiction.
When a court lacks jurisdiction, it may dismiss the case or, in the interest of justice,
transfer it to a district where it could have originally been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here,
because the clock has been running and it is unclear when plaintiff’s claims accrued, it is in
the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
Entered April 28, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3