Herrera v. JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd.

87 F.Supp.3d 1299

Marisela HERRERA, Luz Sanchez, Nicholas Acosta and Penny Wollmen, Plaintiffs

v.JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 8:14–cv–2327–T–30TBM.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

Signed Feb. 20, 2015.

Andrew N. Friedman, Douglas J. McNamara, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, Washington, DC, Diana L. Martin, Leslie M. Kroeger, Theodore J. Leopold, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Kimberly L. Boldt, Boldt Law Firm, PA, Hollywood, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Thomas Meeks, Walter J. Tache, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Miami, FL, Ashley Bruce Trehan, Edward Martin Waller, Jr., John David Emmanuel, Tampa, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER

JAMES S. MOODY, JR., District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant HCA Holdings, Inc.'s Motion Requesting Judicial Notice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. # 34), Defendant HCA Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint with Prejudice, Motion to Strike Class Allegations, and Joinder in Hospital Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. # 35), Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to the Motion (Dkt. # 44), JFK Limited Center Partnership d/b/a JFK Medical Center, Memorial Healthcare Group, Inc. d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville, and North Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Dkt. # 36), and Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to the Motion (Dkt. # 45). Upon review and consideration, it is the Court's conclusion that the Motion Requesting Judicial Notice should be granted and the remaining Motions should be granted in part and denied in part.

Background

Plaintiffs Marisela Herrera, Luz Sanchez, Nicholas Acosta, and Penny Wollmen filed this putative class action against Defendants HCA Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter “HCA”) and JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership d/b/a JFK Medical Center (hereinafter “JFK”), Memorial Healthcare Group, Inc., d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville (hereinafter “Memorial”), and North Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. (hereinafter “North Florida”) (collectively the “Defendant Hospitals”) alleging that they charge unreasonable amounts for emergency radiological services. HCA removed this case to this Court alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and § 1453.

Plaintiffs were patients at the HCA-operated Defendant Hospitals in Florida and received emergency radiological services, including CT scans, X-rays, MRIs, and ultrasounds. The services were covered by their Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) insurance. When Plaintiffs were admitted to the Defendant Hospitals, they signed Conditions of Admission contracts (hereinafter the “Contracts”). The Contracts contain a paragraph titled “Financial Agreement” which provides that the patient or the patient's guarantor:

promises to pay the patient's account at the rates stated in the hospital's price list (known as the “Charge Master”) effective on the date the charge is processed for the service provided, which rates are hereby expressly incorporated by reference as the price term of this agreement to pay the patient's account. Some special items will be priced separately if there is no price listed on the Charge Master.... An estimate of the anticipated charges for services to be provided to the patient is available upon request from the hospital. Estimates may vary significantly from the final charges based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the course of treatment, intensity of care, physician practices, and the necessity of providing additional goods and services.

Herrera alleges that JFK billed $5,900 for the CT scan of her spine; $6,404 for the CT scan of her brain; $3,359 for the lumbar spine X-ray ; and $2,222 for the thoracic spine X-ray. Sanchez alleges that JFK billed $5,900 for the CT scan of her spine; $6,404 for the CT scan of her brain; and $2,222 for the thoracic spine X-ray. Acosta alleges that Memorial billed $6,965 for the CT scan of his spine; and $6,277 for the CT scan of his brain. Wollmen alleges that North Florida billed $6,853 for the CT scan of her cervical spine; $6,140 for the CT scan of her brain; and $1,454 for the X-ray of her thoracic spine.

Plaintiffs allege that the charges for these emergency radiological services are up to 65 times higher than the charges for the same services billed to other patients covered under private or government sponsored insurance programs. The charges are so excessive that they prematurely exhausted the PIP insurance benefits depriving Plaintiffs of coverage for other medical services and leaving them with medical expenses in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violation of the Florida Deceptive Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq., breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of:

... similarly situated individuals who received PIP-covered emergency care radiological services at HCA-operated facilities in Florida who either (a) were billed by the facility for any portion of the charges for such services; and/or (b) had their $10,000 of PIP coverage prematurely exhausted by the facility's charges for such services, and as a result, were billed for additional medical services rendered by the facility and/or third party providers that would otherwise have been covered under PIP.

Plaintiffs previously filed a Motion for Class Certification and Request for Stay of Briefing and Consideration of this Motion and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. # 3) on the basis that Defendants could pre-empt class certification by making offers of judgment to the Plaintiffs. The Court denied that motion as premature.

Discussion

I. Motion to Dismiss Standard

To warrant dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it must be “clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Blackston v. State of Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir.1994) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984) ). “When considering a motion to dismiss, all facts set forth in the plaintiff's complaint are to be accepted as true and the court limits its consideration to the pleadings and exhibits attached thereto.” Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir.2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “A complaint may not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id.

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 ; Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ). Further, exhibits are part of a pleading “for all purposes.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c) ; see Solis–Ramirez v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 758 F.2d 1426, 1430 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam ) (“Under Rule 10(c) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such attachments are considered part of the pleadings for all purposes, including a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”).

On a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider matters judicially noticed. La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir.2004). These matters include documents which are central to plaintiff's claim whose authenticity is not challenged, whether the document is physically attached to the complaint or not, without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Speaker v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir.2010) ; SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.2010).

II. Motion for Judicial Notice

HCA filed its Motion for Judicial Notice requesting that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents: Certificate of Incorporation (DE) of HCA, Certificate of Limited Partnership (DE)—JFK, Articles of Incorporation (FL)—Memorial, Articles of Incorporation (FL)—North Florida, HCA's Form 10–K for Fiscal Year 2013, JFK's application and renewals (FL) re: fictitious name, Memorial's application and renewals (FL) re: fictitious name, North Florida's application and renewals (FL) re: fictitious name, JFK—Agency for Healthcare Administration (“AHCA”) License, Memorial—AHCA License, North Florida—AHCA License, Webpage, “Healthy Work Environment”, and Webpage, “Pricing and Financial Information”. These documents are filed in support of its Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs do not object to the Motion. The Court grants the Motion and will take judicial notice of the attached documents.

III. The Motions to Dismiss

HCA argues that since it is the ultimate parent company of the Defendant Hospitals it has no direct liability for the Defendant Hospitals' actions. Plaintiffs fail to allege a single action or inaction taken by HCA, nor do they allege any other basis for disregarding the corporate form rendering HCA liable for the alleged acts of the Defendant Hospitals. Ultimately, it argues that Plaintiffs' allegations do not state a cause of action under an alter-ego theory, agency theory, or direct liability theory. Further, it argues that Plaintiffs' FDUTPA claims fail because Plaintiffs did not and cannot allege that HCA was engaged in “trade or commerce” as required by the statute. Further, the breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims do not state a...