Roddy v. Erie County Corr. Facility et al
Filing
107
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER granting County of Erie's 89 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr on 7/1/2015. (KER)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DERRICK RODDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
09-CV-0848S(Sr)
LORI LAY and
STEVE SWAIN,
Defendants
STEVE SWAIN,
Third Party Plaintiff
v.
PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT OF WESTERN
NEW YORK, P.C.,
TODD ROLAND,
ROBERT BIEDERMAYER,
COUNTY OF ERIE,
Third Party Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the
assignment of this case to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings in this case,
including the entry of final judgment. Dkt. #72.
The operative complaint asserts a claim of deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs in violation of plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Stephen Swain.
Dkt. #71-1. Stephen Swain commenced a third party action against Physician Assistant
of Western New York, P.C. (“PAWNY”); Todd Roland; Robert Niedermayer; and the
-1-
County of Erie seeking: (1) indemnification pursuant to a contract between the County
of Erie and PAWNY which requires PAWNY to provide comprehensive professional
liability coverage and the County of Erie to provide protection, pursuant to Section 50-d
of the New York State General Municipal Law, “for all sums for legal defense and
payment of medical malpractice claims, awards or judgments up to the limits of said
assigned professional’s primary professional liability insurance policy and any
applicable excess professional liability insurance policy; (2) to pierce the corporate veil
of PAWNY to hold Todd Roland and Robert Niedermayer, each of whom are alleged to
have failed to procure adequate insurance coverage, undercapitalized PAWNY and/or
misused PAWNY’s corporate assets for their personal benefit, personally liable for the
obligations of PAWNY to Stephen Swain; and (3) indemnification from PAWNY, Todd
Roland and Robert Niedermayer pursuant to New York’s Business Corporation Law
§ 1505(a). 1 Dkt. #84.
Currently before the Court is the County of Erie’s motion to dismiss the
third party complaint for failure to state a claim on the ground that the contract
underlying the claim provides indemnification for medical malpractice claims, not civil
rights claims. Dkt. #89. In support of this argument, the County of Erie relies upon the
text of the Independent Contractor Services Agreement, attached to the third party
complaint, which provides:
1
New York’s Business Corporation Law § 1505(a) provides that “[e]ach shareholder, employee
or agent of a professional service corporation . . . shall be personally and fully liable and
accountable for any negligent or wrongful act or misconduct committed by him or any person
under his direct supervision and control while rendering professional services on behalf of such
corporation.”
-2-
COUNTY shall provide protection, as guaranteed by Section
50-d of the New York State General Municipal Law (“Section
50-d”) as well as by a 1977 Resolution of the Erie County
Legislature, for indemnification from Erie County for all sums
for legal defense and payment of medical malpractice
claims, awards or judgments up to the limits of said assigned
professional’s primary professional liability insurance policy
and any applicable excess professional liability insurance
policy.
Dkt. #83-4, p.3, ¶ 1(d). New York General Municipal Law § 50-d provides:
Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, general,
special or local, or limitation contained in the provisions of
any city charter, every municipal corporation shall be liable
for, and shall assume the liability, to the extent that it shall
save him harmless, of any resident physician, physician,
interne, dentist, podiatrist or optometrist rendering medical,
dental, podiatry or optometry services of any kind to a
person without receiving compensation from such person in
a public institution maintained in whole or part by the
municipal corporation . . . for damages for personal injuries
alleged to have been sustained by such person by reason of
the malpractice of such resident physician, physician,
interne, dentist, podiatrist or optometrist while engaged in
the rendition of such services.
The Court takes judicial notice that the 1977 Resolution provides:
[T]he medical malpractice self-insurance plan of the County
of Erie . . . is . . . extended to include the following
professional health service personnel: those dentists,
medical doctors, laboratory technicians, registered nurses,
public health nurses, licensed practical nurses,
chiropractors, podiatrists and other professional health
personnel who render their services to patients at the
request of the County of Erie on the basis of an hourly rate
for services rendered without any billing by themselves to
the patient, in various County clinics, health centers, wellchild clinics, school health clinics, etc., from July 1, 1977 and
into the indefinite future
Dkt. #90-2, p.2.
-3-
In opposition to the motion to dismiss, Stephen Swain argues that the
County of Erie has failed “to identify any controlling authority which states that a claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which, like the case at bar, is based exclusively upon the
care provided by a medical professional (the often named ‘deliberate indifference’
claim), does not fall within the protections afforded to medical professionals under
Section 50-d of the New York State General Municipal Law and the 1977 Resolution of
the Erie County Legislature.” Dkt. #105, ¶ 6. Stephen Swain further argues that
“because PAWNY has refused to defend and indemnify Mr. Swain, it is the obligation of
the County of Erie to do so, even if neither Section 50-d of the New York State General
Municipal Law or the 1977 Resolution of the Erie County Legislature mandates
coverage of claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Dkt. #105, ¶ 8.
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Application of this standard is “a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Id. at 679.
-4-
“In adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must confine its
consideration “to facts stated on the face of the complaint or incorporated in the
complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Leonard
F. v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, 199 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 1999); see also
Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir. 1991). “Where a plaintiff has
relied on the terms and effect of a document in drafting the complaint and that
document is thus integral to the complaint,” the district court may consider the contents
of the document “even if it is not formally incorporated by reference.” Broder v.
Cablevision Systems Corp., 418 F.3d 187, 196 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotations
omitted), quoting Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002). “If
the documents referenced in the complaint contradict the facts alleged by the plaintiff,
the documents control and the court need not accept as true the plaintiff’s allegations.”
Olin Corp. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Corp., No. 05-CV-100, 2006 WL 839415
(W.D.N.Y. March 27, 2006).
It is axiomatic under New York law that the fundamental objective of
contract interpretation is to give effect to the expressed intentions of the parties.
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Retail Holdings, N.V., 639 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 2011). “When
an agreement is unambiguous on its face, it must be enforced according to the plain
meaning of its terms.” Id. “Contract language is unambiguous when it has a definite
and precise meaning and where there is no reasonable basis for a difference of
opinion.” Klos v. Lotnicze, 133 F.3d 164, 168 (2d Cir. 1997).
-5-
In the instant case, the Independent Contractor Services Agreement
clearly provides that the County of Erie shall indemnify PAWNY “for all sums for legal
defense and payment of medical malpractice claims, awards or judgments up to the
limits of [PAWNY’s] primary professional liability insurance policy and any applicable
excess professional liability insurance policy.” Dkt. #84-4, p.3. However, a claim of
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is distinct from a claim of medical
malpractice. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“Medical malpractice
does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”);
Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 703 (2d Cir. 1998) (“negligence, even if it
constitutes medical malpractice, does not, without more, engender a constitutional
claim.”); Hathway v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 550, 553 (2d Cir. 1996) (deliberate indifference
claim “requires a state of mind that is the equivalent of criminal recklessness.”). In light
of the distinctions between medical malpractice and deliberate indifference claims, the
County’s agreement to indemnify Mr. Swain for medical malpractice cannot also
encompass plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim. Accordingly, the County of Erie’s
motion to dismiss the third party complaint (Dkt. #89), is granted.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
Buffalo, New York
July 1, 2015
s/H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. .
H. KENNETH SCHROEDER, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
-6-
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?