J.S.H. v. Newton

654 F.Supp.3d 7

J.S.H., in her Individual Capacity, and as Legal Guardian and on Behalf of Minor Child Known as G.H., Plaintiffs, v. Alice NEWTON, Jane and/or John Doe, Massachusetts General Hospital, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-40086-TSH

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Signed February 1, 2023

John T. Martin, Keches Law Group, P.C., Worcester, MA, Michaela M. Weaver, Keches Law Group, P.C., Milton, MA, for Plaintiffs.

Christine D. McCleney, John D. Cassidy, Ficksman & Conley LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Alice Newton.

Emily A. Moellers, Victoria Brophey George, John P. Faggiano, Faggiano & Associates, P.C., Brookline, MA, for Defendant Massachusetts General Hospital.

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 24)

HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE

J.S.H. and her son, G.H. ("plaintiffs"), bring suit against Dr. Alice Newton ("Dr. Newton"), John / Jane Doe ("John Doe") and Massachusetts General Hospital ("MGH") (collectively "defendants"), alleging violations of federal civil rights laws and common law torts.¹ Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Docket No. 24). For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part their motion.

Background

1. Mito and J.S.H. and Dr. Newton's history

The following facts, taken from the complaint, are accepted as true. See Rosenberg v. City of Everett, 328 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 2003). Mitochondrial Dysfunction ("Mito") is a complex and often genetic medical condition that is often a source of diagnostic frustration due to significant limitations on the ability to objectively confirm a diagnosis and the inconsistency of the condition's presentation. (Am. Comp. at ¶¶ 10-11). Mito adversely affects the body's mitochondria, which oxidizes food and converts nutrients into energy for the cell. (Id. at ¶ 10). Prior to 2017-2018, there was no consistent or established standard of diagnosis. (Id. at ¶ 12). This leads to confusion and disagreements between medical teams as to the appropriate course of treatment for patients with Mito, and parents of children with Mito are often vulnerable to wrongful accusations of child abuse and neglect. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-16).

G.H., J.S.H.'s biological son, is a twelve-year-old who suffers from serious and potentially fatal medical illnesses, which render him completely disabled and require extensive and ongoing medical treatment and specialized services. (Id. at ¶ 8). At some point prior to 2017-2018 G.H.'s doctors suspected that his disability was caused by Mito; the complaint is not clear whether Mito is still a suspected cause, but it notes that there is no unifying or confirmed diagnosis for his condition. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19).

In 2011 J.S.H.'s first child died of a Mito disorder at age four, after a seven-month hospitalization at Boston Children's Hospital ("BCH"). (Id. at ¶ 21). An ethics review conducted by BCH after the death concluded that both the parents and the medical team acted appropriately in the care and treatment of the child. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-23). At some point between June and November 2011, G.H., three years old at the time, began exhibiting complex health symptoms and began receiving treatment at BCH. (Id. at ¶ 24). At that time, Dr. Newton was the head of the Child Protection Team at BCH and very familiar with both J.S.H. and G.H. (Id. at ¶ 25). In November 2011, Dr. Newton filed a "51A report"² with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families ("DCF") accusing J.S.H. of faking G.H.'s disability and subjecting him to unnecessary and painful medical treatments; DCF found the allegations of abuse "unsubstantiated." (Id. at ¶ 26).

After this report, J.S.H. arranged for G.H. to receive his medical treatment from Tufts. (Id. at ¶ 27). However, Dr. Newton continued to file additional 51A reports despite having no affiliation with Tufts. This led to lengthy diagnostic protocols in which G.H.'s treatment would be temporarily stopped to determine whether his condition was organic and medical, or as alleged by Dr. Newton, the result of abuse at the hands of J.S.H. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-29). While treatment was removed, J.S.H. was only allowed to have limited and supervised contact with G.H. (Id. at ¶ 30). This apparently occurred more than once, and in each instance DCF found the allegations unsubstantiated and the medical team concluded the condition was medical, not the product of abuse. (Id. at ¶ 31). The complaint is not clear how long or how many of those reports were filed, but it alleges that from 2011 until August 2018, J.S.H. and G.H. had no contact with Dr. Newton. (Id. at ¶ 32).

2. Dr. Newton's 2018 allegations

In July of 2018, J.S.H. was identified as a witness in an unrelated state court trial where she would testify about Dr. Newton's propensity for making unfounded allegations of abuse against parents of children with Mito. (Id. at ¶ 36-37).

By August of 2018, Dr. Newton was the Medical Director of the Child Protection Program at Massachusetts General Hospital ("MGH"). (Id. at ¶ 34). At this time, G.H. was a patient (among many other doctors) of a gastroenterologist at a satellite location of MGH in western Massachusetts. G.H. was also a patient of UMASS Hospital. (Id. at ¶ 35). Sometime between July and September of 2018, Dr. Newton contacted G.H.'s medical team via text messages, email, and phone calls requesting that they request a consultation with her and the MGH Child Protection Team based on her concerns that J.S.H. was abusing G.H; the medical team refused. (Id. at ¶¶ 39, 41).

Dr. Newton wrote a letter dated September 7, 2018 which was sent to G.H.'s medical providers as well as the Child Abuse Pediatrics team at UMASS Hospital claiming that one of G.H.'s doctors requested a child abuse consultation, suggested that J.S.H. caused the death of her first child (without disclosing the ethics review), and repeated her allegations that J.S.H. was abusing G.H. Dr. Newton went on to encourage the providers to file 51A reports against J.S.H., but none did so. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-48).

Sometime thereafter, G.H.'s gastroenterologist and primary care doctors filed internal complaints about Dr. Newton to MGH. (Id. at ¶ 58-59). This initiated a privileged "peer review" process whose details are unavailable to the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs allege that no action was ever taken against Dr. Newton. (Id. at ¶¶ 60-65). There is also a reference in the complaint to a "Jane and/or John Doe" who allegedly used the peer review process to cover up Dr. Newton's letter. (Id. at ¶ 69).

Sometime after the internal complaints and the peer review investigation had begun, Dr. Newton filed another 51A report, largely tracking the allegations in the letter that J.S.H. was responsible for her first child's death, and that J.S.H. was duping G.H.'s medical providers into giving him unnecessary medical care. (Id. at ¶¶ 50-51). This led to an investigation by DCF that included home visits, interviews with medical providers and Dr. Newton, and which was closed as unsubstantiated. (Id. at ¶ 52-53).

The letter Dr. Newton sent to G.H.'s providers on September 7, 2018, is now part of G.H.'s medical record, at least at UMASS. (Id. at ¶¶ 54-56). The letter causes providers unfamiliar with the case to subject J.S.H. to heightened levels of scrutiny, delays in services, and sometimes hostility when they treat G.H. (Id. at ¶ 56).

Standard of Review

In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must determine "whether, construing the well-pleaded facts of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[ ], the complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted." Cortés-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, 956 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2011)). The complaint must allege "a plausible entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Analysis

1. The general sufficiency of the complaint

The defendants argue that the complaint is too long and does not give them sufficient notice as to the claims pleaded against them. Although the complaint could be clearer, it contains a narrative and a set of enumerated legal claims relating to that narrative. "Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice." F.R.C.P. Rule 8(e). The Court will not dismiss on those grounds.

2. Pseudonymity

The Court also declines to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that no motion for pseudonymity was made. Both the original and amended complaints were filed prior to the First Circuit's decisions in Does 1-3 v. Mills, 39 F.4th 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2022) ("recognizing the strong presumption against the use of pseudonyms in civil litigation"), and Doe v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 46 F.4th 61, 72-73 (1st Cir. 2022) (outlining the test for determining when that presumption is overcome). However, the Court invites further briefing on this issue consistent with those decisions.

3. Statute of Limitations

The defendants argue that conduct prior to 2018 cannot be the basis for liability as it is barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs bring claims based on federal causes of action alleging disability discrimination and claims based on state common law torts.³

For federal causes of action, courts generally borrow analogous state law statutes of limitation, usually from personal injury statutes. Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 118-19 (1st Cir. 2003). However, if a cause of action "arises under" a congressional act enacted after December 1, 1990, the statute of limitation is the...