Downs v. Red River Hospital, LLC
Filing
41
Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Red River Hospital, LLCs Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter is set for trial on the Courts four-week docket beginning December 1, 2014. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 10/6/2014) (trt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
YVONNE DOWNS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RED RIVER HOSPITAL, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 7:13-cv-0129-O
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Red River Hospital, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
filed August 4, 2014 (ECF No. 33). Having considered the motion, response, reply, record, and
applicable law, and for the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Yvonne Downs (“Downs”) filed this lawsuit against her employer, Red River
Hospital, LLC (“Red River’) on October 14, 2013, alleging retaliatory discharge under Section
161.134 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. Red River is an in-patient psychiatric facility in
Wichita Falls that provides behavioral health services to adolescents, adults and active military
personnel, as well as substance abuse treatment programs to both in-patients and out-patients.
Plaintiff Yvonne Downs began working at Red River Hospital in1997 as a Community Liaison and
eventually became its Director of Business Development. In that role, Plaintiff reported directly to
Red River’s Chief Executive Officer, Rob Marsh (“Marsh”). Marsh terminated Plaintiff on
September 30, 2013. Marsh testified at his deposition that he terminated Plaintiff because of her
toxic, negative attitude. Def SJ App. at 48. Prior to her termination, Plaintiff reported violations of
law concerning possible medicare fraud to Marsh, as well as to administrative personnel at Red
River.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence on file show “that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists “if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The
movant makes a showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact by informing the court of the
basis of its motion and by identifying the portions of the record which reveal there are no genuine
material fact issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
When reviewing the evidence on a motion for summary judgment, the court must decide all
reasonable doubts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See Walker v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 853 F.2d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 1988).
The court cannot make a credibility
determination in light of conflicting evidence or competing inferences. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
As long as there appears to be some support for the disputed allegations such that “reasonable minds
could differ as to the import of the evidence,” the motion for summary judgment must be denied.
Id. at 250.
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s sole claim is for retaliatory discharge under Texas Health and Safety Code §
161.134. Section 161.134 provides hospital employees with a statutory cause of action if their
2
employers retaliate against them for reporting a violation of the law. Austin v. HealthTrust, Inc., 967
S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex. 1998). To prove a retaliatory discharge claim, a plaintiff must show that:
(1) she was an employee of a hospital, mental health facility, or treatment facility; (2)
she reported a violation of law; (3) the report was made to a supervisor, an
administrator, a state regulatory agency, or a law enforcement agency; (4) the report
was made in good faith; and (5) she was suspended, terminated, disciplined, or
otherwise discriminated against.
Barron v. Cook Children’s Health Care Sys., 218 S.W.3d 806, 810 (Tex. 2007). Red River argues
that it is entitled to summary judgment since Plaintiff cannot prove the second, third, fourth or fifth
elements. See Def. Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 8, ECF No. 34.
In response, Plaintiff argues that she has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the
elements of her claim under Texas Health and Safety Code § 161.134, and summary judgment
should be denied. In support, Plaintiff has provided the Court with excerpts of her deposition
testimony (Ex. 1, Pl. Resp. App. at 5-65), as well as excerpts from the deposition testimony of her
supervisor, Rob Marsh (Ex. 2, Pl. Resp. App. at 67-129), Red River’s Director of Risk Management,
Orrilea Bolf (Ex. 3, Pl. Resp. App. at 131-59), Red River’s Community Liaison, Angela Simmons
(Ex. 4, Pl. Resp. App. at 161-91), as well as depositions on written questions of former Red River
employee Tina Feller (Ex. 5, Pl. Resp. App. at 193-206). See Pl. Resp. App., ECF No. 38. Having
considered this evidence, as well as evidence filed by Red River to support its motion (see Def. SJ
App., ECF No. 34), and viewing all facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to each element of her statutory claim
for retaliation under § 161.134. Accordingly, Red River is not entitled to summary judgment.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Red River Hospital, LLC’s Motion
3
for Summary Judgment. This matter is set for trial on the Court’s four-week docket beginning
December 1, 2014.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2014.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?