Gajarov v. Allegheny Cnty. Office of Children

Chief Judge Mark R. Hornak

OPINION

Mark R. Hornak, Chief United States District Judge

This case involves an eight-month-old child who was removed from the care and custody of his parents for eighteen (18) days after a Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh ("Hospital") physician suspected child abuse when the child's parents brought the child to the Hospital emergency room with a fractured leg. The Hospital reported the injury to Allegheny County's ("County") child welfare officials. The parents, who speak little English, regained custody about three (3) weeks later when an independent physician provided an alternative explanation for the child's injury—an explanation that the parents claim they had offered to the physician and child welfare employees all along. The parents have now sued the Hospital, the physician, the County child welfare agency, several individual child welfare employees, and the County.

The questions for the Court at this stage of litigation are whether the Plaintiff-parents have pled enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief against each Defendant, and, even if they did, whether any Defendant is immune from potential liability or should otherwise be dismissed from the case.

Page 2

For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the Allegheny County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) will be granted, with limited leave to amend. The Court will hold in abeyance further proceedings as to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30) and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 32) filed by UPMC Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On May 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, alleging federal constitutional claims and state law tort claims against Allegheny County; the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth & Families ("CYF"); Mr. Marc Cherna, the Director of the Allegheny County Department of Human Services, which oversees CYF; and Ms. Josette Pickens and Ms. Ashley Moultrie, CYF caseworkers (collectively, "County Defendants"). (ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiffs also brought state law tort claims against UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and Dr. Adelaide Eichman (collectively, "UPMC Defendants"). (Id.) The County Defendants removed the case to this Court on July 7, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) In August 2020, all parties filed motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 12, 14.) On August 26, 2020, Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint, which is the subject of the Defendants' subsequent Motions and this Opinion. (See ECF No. 18.)

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring federal law claims against the County Defendants for a state-created danger/substantive due process violation (Count II) and unconstitutional policies and customs (Count III), and state law claims asserting "vicarious liability/intentional infliction of emotional distress" (Count V). Plaintiffs bring state law claims against the UPMC Defendants for negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count I) and negligence (Count IV).

Page 3

The County Defendants¹ filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 28.) The UPMC Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and a Motion to Strike Immaterial, Impertinent, and Scandalous Material from Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f). (ECF Nos. 30, 32.) Plaintiffs responded to all Motions. (See ECF Nos. 35, 37, 39.) The UPMC Defendants filed reply briefs. (See ECF Nos. 41, 42.)

B. Factual Background

According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Kenan Gajarov and Lala Jamalova are from Azerbaijan and speak very little English. (ECF No. 18, ¶ 21.) On or around September 16, 2018, Plaintiffs took their eight-month-old son ("R.G.") to the pediatrician after R.G. awoke in the night inconsolably crying. (ECF No. 18, ¶ 11.) The pediatrician considered teething to be the source of the pain and prescribed Tylenol. (Id. ¶ 12.) The next day Plaintiffs noticed that R.G.'s pain had not subsided and that there might be something wrong with his leg. (Id. ¶ 13.) They returned to the pediatrician who advised them to take R.G. to the emergency room at UPMC Children's Hospital. (Id. ¶ 13.)

At the Hospital, R.G. was diagnosed with a fracture of his right tibia. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) On or around September 17, 2018, Defendants Allegheny County and CYF received a report of R.G.'s injuries. (Id. ¶ 15.) CYF consulted with Defendant Dr. Adelaide Eichman, a physician at the Children's Advocacy Center ("CAC") of the Hospital. (Id. ¶¶ 15-18.) Dr. Eichman reported that the fracture was likely due to child abuse, and that R.G. "was not mobile, due to low muscle tone,

Page 4

and would not have been able to cause [the] tibia fracture on his own." (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18.) Dr. Eichman did not consult with a specialist in pediatric orthopedics. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs instead believed that the injury was caused by R.G.'s leg getting stuck in the slats of his crib and said so at the time. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 38.)

Plaintiffs say that CYF caseworkers failed to thoroughly investigate alternate causes of injury, hurried Plaintiffs for an explanation for the injury, and did not accommodate Plaintiffs' need for a translator. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) The day after CYF received a report of R.G.'s injury, County Defendants secured an Emergency Custody Authorization in state court, resulting in R.G.'s placement in a foster home. (Id. ¶ 19.) A shelter care hearing was held three (3) days later, at which point legal and physical custody of R.G. was transferred to CYF. (Id. ¶ 25.)

Two (2) weeks later, CYF learned from Plaintiffs' counsel that an independent pediatric orthopedic surgeon was in the process of concluding that there were alternate explanations for the cause of the tibia fracture, including that R.G.'s leg could have been injured by entanglement in his crib. (Id. ¶ 26.) Upon learning of alternate explanations for R.G.'s injury, CYF transferred R.G. back to the custody and care of Plaintiffs. (Id.) At this point, R.G. had been removed from his parents' care for around eighteen (18) days. (Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiffs assert that they experienced severe emotional and psychological distress related to R.G.'s removal, including depression, headaches, and sleeplessness. (Id. ¶ 70.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A claim may be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court conducts a two-part analysis and first separates the factual and legal elements of a claim. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). The Court "may disregard any legal conclusions," id., and

Page 5

then must "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court need not accept as true any unsupported conclusions, unsupported inferences, nor "threadbare recitals of elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

A plaintiff's factual allegations must "raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and state a "plausible claim for relief" to survive a motion to dismiss. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than the sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

III. DISCUSSION

The County Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 28.) They make several arguments in support of this Motion. (See ECF No. 29.) The County Defendants contend that Ms. Josette Pickens and Mr. Marc Cherna cannot be liable because Ms. Pickens is entitled to absolute and qualified immunity and Mr. Cherna is entitled to qualified immunity for all claims against them; that CYF should be dismissed as a Defendant because it is not a "person" capable of being sued under § 1983; and that the claims against Mr. Cherna should be dismissed for the additional reason that the Complaint does not establish his personal involvement or a basis for individual liability. The County Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a substantive due process claim at Count II and fail to show that an unconstitutional policy or custom existed, let alone one that harmed Plaintiffs, a showing necessary to support the claim at Count III.

Page 6

As discussed below, the Court concludes the following: (1) Ms. Pickens is not entitled to absolute immunity; (2) CYF will be dismissed as a Defendant because Plaintiffs also sued Allegheny County and CYF is not a distinct agency or entity amenable to being sued; (3) the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges Mr. Cherna's direct involvement to support a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) Plaintiffs plausibly state a claim at Count II; (5) Ms. Pickens and Mr. Cherna are entitled to qualified immunity as to the otherwise viable federal claims; and (6) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim at Count III. Because the Court is granting the dismissal of the federal claims asserted against the County Defendants, it will hold in abeyance further action relative to the state claims asserted as to the County Defendants, and as to the claims asserted against UPMC Defendants, pending the exercise/non-exercise by Plaintiffs of the limited leave to amend authorized by this Opinion.

A. Absolute immunity

State officials, sued in their individual capacities, may assert the defense of absolute immunity in certain cases. Here, County Defendants contend that Ms. Pickens, as a CYF employee, is entitled to absolute immunity for the...