United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
OPINION AND ORDER
E. Wier United States District Judge.
on Kentucky's recently-enacted medical review panel act,
codified at KRS Chapter 216C, Defendant Southern Health
Partners, Inc. (SHP), seeks dismissal of Teddy Hacker's
claims against it. DE #8 (Motion). Plaintiff opposed. DE #10
(Response). SHP replied. DE #11. For the following reasons,
the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES
IN PART DE #8.
2018, Hacker sued multiple defendants in this court, raising
a variety of claims. See DE #1 (Complaint). The
Complaint centers on the medical care he received (and did
not receive) while in custody at the Madison County Detention
Center. See Id. Counts 1-4 are 42 U.S.C. §
claims; Count 5 is titled “Negligence and Gross
Negligence.” Madison County and Doug Thomas answered on
July 20, 2018. DE #7. Days later, SHP, the jail's medical
provider, filed the pending motion to dismiss, which the
parties have fully (if succinctly) briefed.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6),  a defendant may seek dismissal based on
an alleged “failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.” Faced with such a motion, the Court
views the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations, and
draws all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct.
1955 (2007)); Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Human
Servs., 901 F.3d 656, 675-76 (6th Cir. 2018). “To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly,
127 S.Ct. at 1974). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw reasonable inferences that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. A
“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.” Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at
1965. The Court need not accept the verity of legal
All malpractice and malpractice-related claims against a
health care provider, other than claims validly agreed for
submission to a binding arbitration procedure, shall be
reviewed by a medical review panel. Such an action may not be
commenced in a court in Kentucky before:
(a) The claimant's proposed complaint has been presented
to a medical review panel established under this chapter; and
(b) An opinion is given by the panel. If the panel has not
given its opinion within nine (9) months after the filing of
the proposed complaint, the plaintiff may commence the action
SHP argues that this statute commands dismissal of
Hacker's claims against it. DE ##8-1, at 1-3; 11. Hacker,
unsurprisingly, disagrees. DE #10. This is creative advocacy
and, apparently, a new question for Kentucky's federal
critical statutory components require examination; the
parties make no argument as to the bulk of them. No. party
disputes that Hacker did not make an express
“malpractice . . . claim.” Hacker does not
dispute that SHP is “a health care provider.” No.
party disputes that Hacker was a “patient.”
Hacker does not dispute that he did not present his claims to
“a medical review panel” before filing this suit.
No. party disputes that this Court is “a court in
does (in effect) argue, though, that Hacker's claims are
“malpractice-related, ” bringing them within the
scope of the statute. See DE #8-1, at 1 (claiming
that “the basis for all causes of action stated in the
Complaint is the Kentucky state law claim of
malpractice”); id. at 2 (arguing that
“Plaintiff's claims are all based upon the state
law claim of medical negligence”).
“Malpractice” and “malpractice-related
claim” carry particular statutory
definitions (that, again, the parties do not address).
As used in Chapter 216C, a “malpractice-related
claim” is “a claim for a tort or a violation of a
statute, administrative regulation, ...