Hinman v. Island View Academy et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 5/13/15 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
BEN HINMAN, individually,
Plaintiff,
v.
ISLAND VIEW ACADEMY; and PROVO
CANYON SCHOOL,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 1:14cv00015
District Judge David Nuffer
Defendant.
Plaintiff Ben Hinman (Hinman) claims negligence and breach of fiduciary duties by
Island View Academy (Island View) and Provo Canyon School (Provo Canyon). Island View
filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative a Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 Island View’s
motion was filed in the alternative and stated “it should be treated as a motion for summary
judgement” 2 because it presented matters outside the pleadings. Accordingly, Hinman was on
notice that he should “present all the material that is pertinent” to a motion for summary
judgment. 3 Because the matters outside the pleadings were not excluded by the court, Island
View’s motion will “be treated as one for summary judgment.” 4 Provo Canyon filed a separate
1
Defendant Island View Academy’s Motion to Dismiss, or Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, with
Incorporated Supporting Memorandum (Island View’s Motion), docket no. 15, filed March 26, 2014.
2
Id. at 1.
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to
and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties
must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.”).
4
Id.
Motion for Summary Judgment. 5 Hinman’s Memoranda in Opposition to both motions were
nearly identical. 6
Defendants’ motions are GRANTED because the statute of limitation bars Hinman’s
claims against both parties. Since the analysis for resolution of both motions is identical, the
motions will be addressed collectively in this order.
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................. 3
UNDISPUTED FACTS .................................................................................................................. 3
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 7
I.
Standard for Summary Judgment............................................................................ 7
II.
Island View and Provo Canyon Properly Support Their Motions for Summary
Judgment and Hinman Fails to Show There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact .. 8
i.
According to the UHCMA, Island View and Provo Canyon are health
care providers. ............................................................................................. 8
ii.
Hinman failed to bring this action against Island View and Provo
Canyon within UHCMA’s two-year statute of limitations. ........................ 9
iii.
Hinman does not substantiate his assertion that both he and his
parents did not consider Island View and Provo Canyon to be health
care providers at the time of his admission................................................. 9
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 11
ORDER ......................................................................................................................................... 12
BACKGROUND
As a minor, Hinman resided first at Island View and then Provo Canyon. At both Island
View and Provo Canyon he received treatment for emotional and psychological issues. Hinman
reached majority on February 18, 2010. He brought this suit on February 18, 2014. 7 Hinman
claims Island View and Provo Canyon were negligent in their care and breached their fiduciary
5
Provo Canyon School’s Motion for Summary judgment, with Incorporated Supporting Memorandum (Provo
Canyon’s Motion), docket no. 20, filed April 4, 2014.
6
Compare Opposition to Defendant Island View Academy’s Motion to Dismiss or For Summary Judgment
(Opposition to Island View’s Motion), docket no. 17, filed April 28, 2014, with Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant
Provo Canyon School’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Opposition to Provo Canyon’s Motion), docket no. 23,
filed July 14, 2014.
7
Complaint for Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Complaint), docket no. 3, filed February 18, 2014.
2
duties while he resided in their facilities. Island View and Provo Canyon moved for summary
judgment on the basis that the statute of limitation bars Hinman’s claims.
JURISDICTION
Island View and Provo Canyon are both located in Utah. 8 Hinman is a citizen of
California. 9 Jurisdiction, therefore, is proper in this court based on diversity of citizenship. 10
Hinman’s claims arose in Utah, 11 and he has chosen to bring them in a Utah forum. Utah law
applies. 12
UNDISPUTED FACTS 13
1.
Plaintiff Hinman was admitted to Island View on November 13, 2007, and
discharged on June 17, 2008. 14
2.
During his Island View admission, Plaintiff Hinman’s attending psychiatrist was
Richard L. Jackson, M.D. 15
3.
Additionally, during his Island View admission, Plaintiff Hinman received care
from the following providers: Jared Balmer, M.F.T.; Rebecca Harris Basso, R.N.; Frankie Lynn
Davis, A.P.R.N.; Jody Lynn Fowers, A.P.R.N.; Matthew James Gardiner, M.D.; Jennifer Lynn
8
Island View’s Motion at 3; Provo Canyon’s Motion at 6.
9
Complaint at 2.
10
28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2014).
11
See Complaint at 2.
12
See Hargett v. Limberg, 801 F.2d 368, 370 (10th Cir. 1986).
13
Hinman failed to dispute these facts in either the Opposition to Island View’s Motion or the Opposition to Provo
Canyon’s Motion. Under DUCivR 56-1(c)(3) “the movant’s statement of material facts will be deemed admitted
unless specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party identifying and citing to material facts of
record meeting the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”
14
Island View’s Motion at 5.
15
Id.
3
Selent, M.F.T. intern; Melissa Stephens, M.S., M.F.T. intern. During that time, all of those
providers were validly licensed to practice, in their respective professions, by the State of Utah. 16
4.
Hinman’s care at Island View included treatment with psychotropic medications,
prescribed and monitored by Dr. Jackson and other licensed prescribers including Dr. Gardiner,
Frankie Lynn Davis, A.P.R.N., and Jody Lynn Fowers, A.P.R.N. 17
5.
Hinman’s Island View care also included individual and family therapy, mainly
via primary therapist Melissa Stephens, M.S., M.F.T. intern. He also received group therapy, and
at all times was treated in Island View’s milieu therapy system. 18
6.
During Hinman’s Island View admission, Island View was accredited by the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization. 19
7.
During Hinman’s Island View admission, Island View was licensed, by the State
of Utah Department of Human Services, as an intermediate secure care facility for juveniles. 20
8.
During Hinman’s Island View admission, Island View was licensed, by the State
of Utah Department of Human Services, as an intermediate secure care facility for juveniles. 21
9.
Hinman was admitted to Provo Canyon on January 22, 2009, and discharged
December 31, 2009. 22
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id. at 6.
21
Id.
22
Provo Canyon’s Motion at 7.
4
10.
During Hinman’s admission, Provo Canyon was licensed by the Utah Department
of Human Services (DHS), as a provider of “Intermediate Secure Care for 130 male youth clients
ages 13–17 years old.” 23
11.
To maintain its DHS license, Provo Canyon had to satisfy periodic Utah DHS
reviews. For the review cycle relevant to Plaintiff’s residence at PCS, DHS found that PCS had
satisfied its many requirements pursuant to Utah Admin. Code R501-16 et seq., including but not
limited to:
a. Maintain its purpose of “offer[ing] room and board and provide[] for or arrange[]
for the provision of specialized treatment, rehabilitation or habilitation services. In
intermediate secure treatment, each is assisted in acquiring the social and
behavioral skills necessary for living in the community;”
b. “[H]ave all direct care staff maintain first aid and CPR certification;”
c. Professional staff, including required staff with the following training: “a licensed
physician,” “a licensed psychologist,” “a licensed mental health therapist,” and “a
licensed registered nurse.”
d. “Unlicensed staff who are trained to work with youth who are chemically
dependent or emotionally or behaviorally disturbed or conduct disordered work
under the supervision of a licensed clinical professional;”
e. Treatment plans reviewed and signed by a licensed clinical professional;
f. Provide prescription medication as prescribed by a licensed medical professional;
g. Program staff assistance with self-administration of medication, as well as a
record of medication, including time, dosage, and effects of medication;
23
Id. at 2.
5
h. Therapy provided to each resident, including at a minimum one individual weekly
therapy session, one weekly group therapy session, and one monthly family or
couple therapy session, unless the treatment plan specifies otherwise. 24
12.
During his admission to Provo Canyon, Hinman’s admitting psychiatrist was
Delbert Pearson, M.D. 25
13.
Additionally, during his Provo Canyon admission, Hinman received care from the
following providers: Wade Taylor, L.M.F.T.; Barry Stone, PA.C, R.N.; Phillip Cox, C.T.R.S.;
Nicole Bernard, T.R.I.; Shannon Nelson, T.R.S., C.T.R.S.; Susan Peterson, C.P.G.; James
Tekulve Martial-Vann, M.F.T.I., C.F.L.E.; and David H. Ridley, M.F.T.I. During that time, all of
these providers were validly licensed to practice, in their respective professions, by the State of
Utah. 26
14.
Hinman’s care at Provo Canyon included treatment with psychotropic
medications, prescribed and monitored by Dr. Pearson and other licensed prescribers including
P.A. Stone. 27
15.
Hinman’s care also included individual, family, and group therapy, with
Hinman’s primary therapist Wade Taylor, L.M.F.T. 28
16.
During Hinman’s admission, Provo Canyon was accredited by the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization. 29
24
Id. at 3–4.
25
Id. at 4.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
Id. at 5.
6
17.
Hinman’s birthdate is on February 18, 1992. 30
18.
Hinman turned eighteen years old on February 18, 2010. 31
19.
Hinman filed his complaint in this Court on February 18, 2014, four years after he
turned eighteen. 32
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is proper if the moving party can demonstrate that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 33 The party
seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating an absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. 34 To show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the moving party
has the initial burden of production to establish that summary judgment is appropriate as a matter
of law. 35 “Once the moving party has properly supported its motion for summary judgment, the
burden shifts to the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 36 “An issue is genuine ‘if the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” 37 On summary judgment
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
34
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
35
Pelt v. Utah, 539 F.3d 1271, 1280 (10th Cir. 2008).
36
Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964, 971 (10th Cir. 2002).
37
Id. at 972 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
7
the court views the evidence and draws inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. 38
II.
Island View and Provo Canyon Properly Support Their Motions for Summary
Judgment and Hinman Fails to Show There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact
Island View and Provo Canyon argue they have met their burden for summary judgment
by showing there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning their statuses as health care
providers and no genuine issue of material fact that the statute of limitations bars Hinman’s
claims under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act (UHCMA).
i.
According to the UHCMA, Island View and Provo Canyon are health care
providers.
In relevant part, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-403(12) defines a health care provider as a
partnership, association, corporation, or other facility or institution who causes to
be rendered or who renders health care or professional services as a hospital,
health care facility, physician, registered nurse . . . clinical social worker, certified
social worker, social service worker, marriage and family counselor, . . . or others
rendering similar care and services relating to or arising out of the health needs of
persons or groups of persons.
In Platts v. Parents Helping Parents the court held that “[a]ll those identified in the
statute are ‘health care providers.’” 39 Both Island View and Provo Canyon are facilities that
employed physicians, registered nurses, and marriage and family counselors in treating
Hinman. 40 Hinman provides no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, Island View and Provo
Canyon are health care providers.
38
Matushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Wright v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 925 F.2d
1288, 1292 (10th Cir. 1991).
39
Platts v. Parents Helping Parents, 947 P.2d 658, 663 (Utah 1997).
40
See Exhibit 1: Declaration of David G. Hans, Psy.D., In Support of Defendant Island View Academy’s Motion to
Dismiss at ¶ 5, attached as exhibit 1 to Island View’s Motion, docket no. 15-1; Psychiatric Evaluation at 5, attached
as exhibit 2 to Provo Canyon’s Motion, docket no. 20-2.
8
ii.
Hinman failed to bring this action against Island View and Provo Canyon
within UHCMA’s two-year statute of limitations.
Utah Code 78B-3-404 states that “[a] malpractice action against a health care provider
shall be commenced within two years after the plaintiff or patient discovers, or through the use
of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury.”
Even though Utah Code 78B-2-108 41 afforded Hinman an extension while he was a
minor, once he reached majority at age eighteen, the statute of limitations began running. 42
Hinman turned eighteen February 18, 2010. 43 This action was brought February 18, 2014, 44 two
years after the statute of limitations expired. Thus, Hinman failed to timely file suit.
iii.
Hinman does not substantiate his assertion that both he and his parents did
not consider Island View and Provo Canyon to be health care providers at
the time of his admission.
Hinman states that he “had no idea that Island view [and Provo Canyon] could market
itself as an academy [or school] and then defend itself as a medical clinic. He did not know and
could not know that he would ever be subject to the limitations of a medical malpractice suit.” 45
Apparently, his argument is that the statute of limitations should be tolled based on equitable
estoppel for legal ignorance. This is misguided. “Mere ignorance of the existence of a cause of
action will neither prevent the running of the statute of limitations nor excuse a plaintiff’s failure
to file a claim within the relevant statutory period.” 46
41
“During the time the person is underage or incompetent, the statute of limitations for a cause of action other than
for the recovery of real property may not run.”
42
See Nelson v. Salt Lake City, 919 P.2d 568, 572 (Utah 1996).
43
Provo Canyon’s Motion at 5.
44
Id.
45
Opposition to Island View’s Motion at 9; Opposition to Provo Canyon’s Motion at 9.
46
Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 108 P.3d 741, 746 (Utah 2005).
9
Hinman also attempts to toll the statute of limitations by way of the “concealment version
of the discovery rule,” 47 “fraudulent concealment,” 48 and “exceptional circumstances.” 49 These
are among the “narrow settings” or “limited” circumstances in which a limitations period may be
tolled. 50 Once the defense has proven that the filing is untimely, it then becomes the plaintiff’s
burden to prove that tolling applies. 51 Hinman has conceded that the complaint was filed after the
UHCMA’s two-year statute of limitation, 52 but has provided no evidence to prove tolling
applies.
iv.
UHCMA applies, notwithstanding Hinman’s argument that his claims are
not related to medical malpractice.
Hinman argues Island View’s and Provo Canyon’s services should be partitioned into
two separate and distinct roles: school and health care provider. 53 He then argues that his claims
only involve the school side of each facility. 54 This argument is nearly identical to one made by
the plaintiff in Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Center Inc. 55 There the plaintiff attempted
to separate Four Corners’ role as a health care provider from its foster care services. The court
first cited the UHCMA’s provision that defines a malpractice action as “any action against a
health care provider, whether in contract, tort, breach of warranty, wrongful death, or otherwise,
based on alleged personal injuries relating to or arising out of health care rendered or which
47
Opposition to Island View’s Motion at 9–11; Opposition to Provo Canyon’s Motion at 9–10.
48
Opposition to Island View’s Motion at 10; Opposition to Provo Canyon’s Motion at 10.
49
Opposition to Island View’s Motion at 10; Opposition to Provo Canyon’s Motion at 10.
50
Russell Packard Dev., Inc., 108 P.3d at 746–47.
51
Id. at 748.
52
See Opposition to Island View’s Motion at 2 (“Hinman does not contest that his case was filled more than two
years after he reached majority.”).
53
Island View’s Motion at 4–5; Provo Canyon’s Motion at 3–4.
54
Island View’s Motion at 4–5; Provo Canyon’s Motion at 3–4.
55
70 P.3d 904 (Utah 2003).
10
should have been rendered by the health care provider.” 56 The court determined that the foster
care services were part of Four Corners’ role as a health care provider, i.e., that the foster care
claims “relat[ed] to or ar[ose] out of health care rendered” by Four Corners. 57
Similarly, Hinman’s broad claims relate to and arose out of the health care Island View
and Provo Canyon provided. Indeed, in the e-mail included in the Opposition to Island View’s
motion from Hinman to his counsel, Hinman goes on for some length about Island View’s health
care choices and how they relate to the causes of action. 58
CONCLUSION
The undisputed facts show Island View and Provo Canyon are health care providers.
Therefore, claims brought against them are subject to the UHCMA. The undisputed facts also
show Hinman failed to bring this suit before the UHCMA’s statute of limitation expired.
56
Id. at 913.
57
Id. at 914.
58
Opposition to Island View’s Motion at 7 (“Any logical person can see that putting a bunch of angry prepubescent
teens in one place together is a recipe for disaster, however in Island View they operate on a different logic. When a
medication does not work, they don’t take you off it. They place you on more, to ‘balance it out.’”).
11
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Island View Academy’s Alternative Motion
for Summary Judgment 59 and Provo Canyon School’s Motion for Summary judgment 60 are
GRANTED. The clerk is directed to close this case.
Dated May 13, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
59
60
Docket no. 15, filed March 26, 2014.
Docket no. 20, filed April 4, 2014.
12
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?