Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hacker v. Madison County

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

October 10, 2018

TEDDY RYAN HACKER, Plaintiff,
v.
MADISON COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Robert E. Wier United States District Judge.

         Based 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.[1]

         I. BACKGROUND

         In June 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. § 1983[2] 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.

         II. STANDARD

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), [3] 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 conclusions. Id.

         III. ANALYSIS

         KRS 216C.020(1)[4] provides:

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 in court.

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 courts.[5]

         Several 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 Kentucky.”

         SHP 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[6] (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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.