Brown v. Cnty. of Solano

1

ELIESA RENE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SOLANO, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01045-DAD-AC

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 2, 2023

ORDER GRANTING THE BIC DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT SDI'S MOTION TO DISMISS

(DOC. NOS. 24, 35)

DALE A. DROZD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Robinson Yu, Cynthia Tan, and Bay Imaging Consultants (“BIC”) (collectively, the “BIC defendants”) on September 19, 2022, and the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Solano Diagnostic Imaging (“SDI”) on October 17, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 24, 35.) The pending motions were taken under submission on November 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 40.) For the reasons explained below, the court will grant both motions to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On July 29, 2022, plaintiff Eliesa Rene Brown filed her operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging claims of medical negligence and race discrimination against defendants County of Solano, Sharon L. Collins, Christine L. Vetter SDI, and the BIC defendants.^[1] (Doc. No. 18.) In her FAC plaintiff alleges as follows.

Plaintiff, a black woman, received negligent and racial discriminatory healthcare services from Fairfield Family Health Services (the “clinic”), a family healthcare clinic, from approximately 2015 through 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 13-26.) The clinic is “owned, operated, controlled, managed, funded, and supervised” by defendant County of Solano and is where plaintiff “received all of the healthcare treatment at issue in” the FAC. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff was seen by “defendants” at the clinic on three occasions in late December 2018 and early January 2019-first, for complaints of shortness of breath and re-evaluation of a cyst; second, for shortness of breath and ear pain; and third, for shortness of breath and ear pain with a suspected blockage. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-16.) On each visit, plaintiff alleges that she did not receive any medical treatment in response to her complaint of shortness of breath. (Id.) After plaintiffs three visits, defendant Collins, a nurse practitioner, stated in a letter dated January 10, 2019 that she would not be referring plaintiff to “an ENT specialist because she did not see an issue with the plaintiff's ear.” (Id. at ¶ 17.) In addition, defendant Collins “refused to refer plaintiff for a CT exam, chest x-ray or to a pulmonologist” in response to plaintiff's shortness of breath complaint, which plaintiff alleges “was completely ignored.” (Id. at ¶ 17.)

Six months later, on or about July 8, 2019, plaintiff was seen again at the clinic for a complaint of shortness of breath and a follow-up for her ear pain. (Id. at ¶ 18.) At this visit, defendant Collins allegedly offered no treatment and no referral of plaintiff to a pulmonologist and denied plaintiff's request to have a CT scan performed in connection with her complaint of shortness of breath. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Plaintiff did receive other lab tests, which indicated that she suffered from tachycardia, but plaintiff did not receive those test results until March 2020 when she requested copies of her medical records. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

On or about July 30, 2019, plaintiff underwent a pulmonary function test at the clinic. (Id. at ¶ 20.) However, the results of that test were never explained or reviewed with plaintiff, nor was plaintiff's pulse oxygen reading of 83%, which was recorded during this July 30, 2019 encounter, shown or explained to plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff also was not provided any further treatment, or told to schedule a follow-up visit, or to come back for further evaluation or treatment. (Id.) However, on September 20, 2019, plaintiff was advised to return for a second pulmonary function test, which was performed on September 24, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 21.) The results of that test were also not explained to plaintiff. (Id.) Unbeknownst to plaintiff at that time, the second pulmonary function test “showed an obstruction and severe restrictive lung defect suggestive of emphysema and a severe decrease in capacity of the lungs.” (Id.)

On October 13, 2019, plaintiff was rushed by ambulance to a hospital where she was later admitted “with a diagnosis of acute exasperation [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] with asthma and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia.” (Id. at ¶ 22.)

In February 2020, plaintiff requested copies of her medical records from the clinic, and upon receiving and reviewing those records in March 2020, plaintiff “learned for the first time that previous diagnostic testing showed lung defects that [were] never explained or reviewed with her by any of the defendants.” (Id. at ¶ 23.)

In addition, and most relevant to resolution of the pending motions, plaintiff alleges that defendants Tan, Vetter, and Yu, radiologists employed by defendants Bay Imaging Consultants and Solano Diagnostics Imaging, “misread plaintiff's chest x-rays and a CT scan resulting in a lack of timely treatment for the plaintiff for her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) “Plaintiff only discovered in March 2022, that these radiologists misread Plaintiff's chest x-rays in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019 leading to a misdiagnosis and a lack of treatment.” (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that it was not until early May 2022 that she discovered the correct name of the employers of defendants Tan, Vetter, and Yu. (Id.)

Based on the above allegations, plaintiff asserts the following two claims in her FAC: (1) medical negligence brought against all defendants; and (2) racial discrimination in violation of the Affordable Care Act § 1557, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and “related California Acts providing the same protections to minorities” brought against defendants County of Solano and Collins. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-35.)

On September 19, 2022, the BIC defendants filed a motion to dismiss supported by the declaration of attorney David A. Depolo and accompanying exhibits.^[2] (Doc. Nos. 24, 25.) On October 17, 2022, defendant SDI filed its own motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 35.) On November 4, 2022, plaintiff filed separate oppositions to each of the pending motions to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 38, 39.) On November 10, 2022, the BIC defendants filed their reply, and on November 14, 2022, defendant SDI filed its reply.^[3] (Doc. Nos. 41, 42.)

Prior to the July 29, 2022 filing of her FAC in this court, plaintiff had initiated this action by filing her original complaint in Solano County Superior Court on March 15, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants County of Solano and Collins removed the action to this federal court on June 14, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) The BIC defendants and defendants SDI and Vetter were not named as defendants in plaintiff's original complaint, but were added as defendants when plaintiff filed her FAC. (Id.; Doc. No. 18.) In addition, before plaintiff filed her original complaint in state court, she filed an administrative claim for damages with the County of Solano on August 17, 2020, which was rejected by the county on September 21, 2020. (Doc. No. 18 at ¶¶ 25-26.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(6) - Failure to State a Claim

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. StarInt'lv. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). However, the court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. U.S. ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading is insufficient if it offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). It is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff “can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is permitted to consider material that is properly submitted as part of the complaint, documents that are not physically attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not contested and the plaintiffs' complaint necessarily relies on them, and matters of public record. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d. 668, 688-689 (9th Cir. 2001).

Finally “[a] claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations only when the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the...