McCauley v. Amedisys Holding, L.L.C. et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS: It is ORDERED that Defendant's 38 Partial Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 3/4/14. (cnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PAMELA MCCAULEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV9
(Judge Keeley)

AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C. and
TIFFANY JONES, individually and
in her capacity as area vice-president
for Amedisys,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. No. 38]
Pending before the Court is the motion of the defendant, (dkt.
no. 38), Amedisys Holding, L.L.C. (“Amedisys”), seeking partial
dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint of the plaintiff, Pamela
McCauley (“McCauley”).

For the reasons that follow, the Court

DENIES the motion.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 28, 2012, McCauley filed suit in the Circuit Court
of

Monongalia

Amedisys

and

County,
Tiffany

West

Virginia,

Jones

against

(“Jones”)

the

defendants,

(collectively

“the

defendants”), asserting a claim of age discrimination in violation
of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (“WVHRA”).

In accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the defendants removed the case to this
Court on January 17, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15, on February 11, 2013, McCauley filed an amended complaint

MCCAULEY v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C. et al

1:13CV9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
that alleged causes of action of age discrimination in violation of
the WVHRA and common law wrongful discharge against the defendants.
(Dkt. No. 7).
On February 25, 2013, Amedisys moved to dismiss claim of
common law wrongful discharge in McCauley’s amended complaint,
(dkt. no. 11), which the Court denied without prejudice. (Dkt. No.
28). McCauley then filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 8,
2013, in which she alleged causes of action of age discrimination
in violation of the WVHRA, and, for the first time, violation of
the West Virginia Patient Safety Act of 2001 (“Patient Safety Act”
or “the Act”). (Dkt. No. 37). Amedisys moved to dismiss that
complaint on September 6, 2013 on the basis that McCauley’s
allegation of a violation of the Patient Safety Act did not state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Dkt. No. 38). That
motion is now fully briefed and ripe for review.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In January, 2009, Amedisys hired McCauley as clinical manager
of its hospice facility in Morgantown, West Virginia.

She alleges

that, although she performed her work at a satisfactory level that
met

the

defendants’

legitimate

expectations,

Jones,

who

is

Amedisys’s area vice-president, fired her on September 24, 2012,

2

MCCAULEY v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C. et al

1:13CV9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
and hired a younger person to fill her position.

She therefore

contends that her termination was motivated by age discrimination.
(Dkt. No. 37).
McCauley further contends that, throughout her employment, the
defendants instructed her to write and sign prescriptions, which
she was not legally authorized to do.

After she informed them of

her concerns about the legality of this practice, the defendants
directed

her

to

continue

writing

and

signing

prescriptions.

According to McCauley, it was only shortly before they terminated
her that the defendants acknowledged the unlawfulness of their
directives

and

instructed

her

to

stop

writing

prescriptions.

Although McCauley complied, she was terminated, and now argues that
it was the defendants’ desire to conceal their illegal actions that
substantially motivated them to terminate her employment.

Id.

III. LEGAL STANDARD
In order to survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). In its determination of plausibility, the
Court must consider all well-pleaded factual allegations in a

3

MCCAULEY v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C. et al

1:13CV9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.,
519 F.3d 250,

253 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court also may consider

facts

from

derived

sources

beyond

the

four

corners

of

the

complaint, including documents attached to the complaint, documents
attached to the motion to dismiss “so long as they are integral to
the complaint and authentic,” and facts subject to judicial notice
under

Fed.

R.

Evid.

201.

Philips,

572

F.3d

at

180

(citing

Blankenship v. Manchin, 471 F.3d 523, 526 n. 1 (4th Cir. 2006));
see also Katyle, 637 F.3d at 466.
Courts,

however,

are

not

required

to

accept

conclusory

allegations couched as facts and nothing more when ruling on a
motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6). A complaint must include
“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . .” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct.1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
IV. ANALYSIS
McCauley’s Second Amended Complaint sufficiently states a
claim for relief under the Patient Safety Act to avoid dismissal at

4

MCCAULEY v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C. et al

1:13CV9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
this early stage.

The West Virginia Legislature enacted the

Patient Safety Act out of a concern for patient safety and a need
to protect health care providers who witness “instances of waste or
wrongdoing that detrimentally affect both the patients and the
health care facility.”

W.Va. Code § 16-39-2. Its purpose is to

protect health care providers who “are often reluctant to report
the waste or wrongdoing to the administrator of the health care
facility or other appropriate authority for fear of retaliatory or
discriminatory treatment through termination, demotion, reduction
of time, wages or benefits, or other such actions.” Id. By enacting
the Patient Safety Act, the West Virginia Legislature intended to
“protect patients by providing protections for those health care
workers with whom the patient has the most direct contact.” Id.
The allegations in McCauley’s Second Amended Complaint fit
squarely within the type of circumstances the Patient Safety Act
was

designed

to

protect.

She

has

alleged

retaliation

as

a

consequence of having reported her concerns about being illegally
directed to write and sign prescriptions. The Patient Safety Act
specifically protects health care workers in such circumstances. In
pertinent part, it prohibits retaliation “in any manner against any
health care worker because the worker: (1) Makes a good faith

5

MCCAULEY v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C. et al

1:13CV9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
report, or is about to report, verbally or in writing, to the
health

care

entity

or

appropriate

authority

an

wrongdoing or waste [...]” W.Va. Code § 16-39-4(a).

instance

of

A report is

considered to be made “in good faith” if the “worker reasonably
believes

(1)

that

the

information

is

true

and

(2)

that

it

constitutes waste or wrongdoing as defined in the Act.” § 16-394(b).
Amedisys contends that McCauley’s Second Amended Complaint
fails to plead sufficient facts to constitute wrongdoing under the
Patient Safety Act. Under the Act, “wrongdoing” is defined as “a
violation of any law, rule, regulation or generally recognized
professional or clinical standard that relates to care, services,
or conditions and which potentially endangers one or more patients
or workers or the public.”

W.Va. Code § 16-39-3(8).

McCauley’s Second Amended Complaint specifically alleges that
the

defendants’

directives

to

write

and

sign

prescriptions

constituted wrongdoing because such directives are unlawful under
the Act.

She further alleges that, before they fired her, the

defendants admitted they knew the practice was unlawful. (Dkt. No.
37). Such allegations are clearly sufficient to state a claim of
wrongdoing under the Patient Safety Act.

6

MCCAULEY v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C. et al

1:13CV9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Amedisys also asserts McCauley failed to allege that she
either reported or was about to report any such
required by the Act.

(Dkt. No. 39).

wrongdoing, as

In her Second Amended

Complaint, however, McCauley specifically alleges that she made
several

internal

reports

complaining

about

unlawfully write and sign prescriptions.

being

directed

to

It further alleges that

she was prepared to report the wrongdoing to the appropriate health
care authorities. (Dkt. No. 37).

Thus, at this early stage in the

litigation, McCauley has sufficiently pled facts that she reported
or was about to report the alleged wrongdoing.

Her Second Amended

Complaint therefore adequately states a claim for relief under the
Patient Safety Act to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES the partial motion
to dismiss of the defendant, Amedisys Holding, L.L.C.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to counsel of record.
DATED: March 4, 2014.

7

MCCAULEY v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C. et al

1:13CV9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8