Ahmed v. Infinite Health Collaborative
Mohamud Abdi Ahmed v. Infinite Health Collaborative, P.A., d/b/a Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A.; Crosstown Surgery Center, LLC; and Dr. Allan Hunt
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-04539
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Ahmed v. Infinite Health Collaborative, Judge Tunheim dismissed a deaf patient's HIPAA, informed consent, and civil rights claims against his orthopedic care providers, while leaving his Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims intact.
Deaf patients and other individuals who receive medical care and believe they were denied communication accommodations or were pressured into signing consent forms without adequate assistance. This ruling clarifies that HIPAA cannot be enforced through a private lawsuit in this circuit, and that informed consent claims must be tied to a specific identified legal authority to survive dismissal.
What happened
In Mohamud Abdi Ahmed v. Infinite Health Collaborative, P.A. (doing business as Twin Cities Orthopedics), Crosstown Surgery Center, LLC, and Dr. Allan Hunt, a deaf patient sued his medical providers over events surrounding shoulder surgery he received in 2020 and 2021. Ahmed, representing himself, alleged that he was pressured into signing a surgical consent form without a qualified American Sign Language interpreter, that his medical records contained false statements about his understanding, and that he was denied interpreter access at pre-operative appointments. His complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), informed consent laws, and civil rights laws.
The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss, targeting only the HIPAA, informed consent, and civil rights claims — not the ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims. On the HIPAA claim, the court noted that federal law does not give individual patients the right to sue under HIPAA, and Ahmed offered no argument to the contrary. On the informed consent claim, the court found that Ahmed's complaint did not identify any specific legal authority — federal or state — that would entitle him to relief, and that a Minnesota state statute he mentioned in his response briefs had never appeared in the complaint itself. On the civil rights claim, Ahmed provided no supporting facts in his complaint and no rebuttal argument.
Judge Tunheim granted the defendants' partial motion to dismiss. Ahmed's HIPAA claim was dismissed with prejudice (meaning it cannot be refiled). His informed consent claim was dismissed without prejudice (meaning he may refile it if he can correct the deficiencies). His civil rights claim was also dismissed with prejudice. The court also granted Ahmed's request to file an additional response brief. Ahmed's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were not dismissed and remain pending.
The detailed version
- Ahmed v. Infinite Health Collaborative · No. 0:25-cv-04539
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 18, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Mohamud Abdi Ahmed, proceeding pro se (without a lawyer), filed a complaint on December 5, 2025 against Infinite Health Collaborative, P.A., doing business as Twin Cities Orthopedics (TCO); Crosstown Surgery Center, LLC; and Dr. Allan Hunt. Ahmed's claims arise from his experiences as a patient who received shoulder surgery and related care from TCO in 2020 and 2021.
Ahmed, who is deaf, alleged that TCO staff used his mother — not a qualified American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter — to pressure him into signing a surgical consent form, and that a Zoom interpreter was only provided after he had already signed the form. He further alleged he was denied qualified interpreter access at pre-operative appointments on July 24 and August 6, 2020, and that staff improperly used his phone notes and written messages as substitutes for a qualified ASL interpreter. He also alleged that his medical records falsely stated that he had voiced understanding of the consent and falsely blamed him for communication issues. Ahmed states he suffered emotional trauma, fear of medical settings, chronic stress, and long-term harm as a result, and that he avoided medical care after the surgery.
Ahmed's complaint asserted claims under: (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (3) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA); (4) informed consent laws; and (5) civil rights violations.
Procedural Posture
On March 2, 2026, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim for relief. Defendants expressly limited their motion to three categories of claims — HIPAA, informed consent, and civil rights — and did not seek dismissal of the ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims. Ahmed filed a timely response, and the court also granted Ahmed's motion for leave to file a surreply (an additional response brief beyond the standard briefing sequence) and considered the arguments in it.
Legal Standard
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and reads them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. However, the complaint must plead enough factual content — not merely legal conclusions or formulaic recitations — to make the claim "plausible on its face" under the standards established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Pro se plaintiffs receive liberal construction of their pleadings but must still allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim.
Holdings
HIPAA Claim — Dismissed with Prejudice
The court dismissed Ahmed's HIPAA claim with prejudice (barring refiling). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court covering Minnesota) has held that HIPAA does not create a private right of action — meaning individual patients cannot sue in federal court to enforce HIPAA. Ahmed offered no argument in his briefing to rebut this principle.
Informed Consent Claim — Dismissed without Prejudice
The court dismissed Ahmed's informed consent claim without prejudice (allowing refiling if deficiencies are corrected). Ahmed's complaint did not identify any specific statute, federal or state, under which this claim was brought. The complaint listed "federal informed consent law" as the jurisdictional basis, but no single federal statute or federal common law governs informed consent for medical treatment. In his opposition briefs, Ahmed cited a Minnesota state statute and characterized his claim differently than in the complaint, but neither those characterizations nor the cited statute appeared in the complaint itself. The court, while applying liberal construction to Ahmed's pro se pleading, found the claim too bare to survive: it lacked any identified legal authority entitling Ahmed to relief.
Civil Rights Claim — Dismissed with Prejudice
The court dismissed Ahmed's civil rights claim with prejudice. Ahmed's complaint alleged "civil rights violations" in one paragraph but provided no supporting facts and did not include this category in his request for relief. In his opposition brief, Ahmed appeared to suggest this language was simply a reference to his ADA and Section 504 claims. He offered no argument rebutting dismissal, and the court granted the motion on that basis.
Claims That Remain Pending
Ahmed's claims under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act were not subject to this motion and remain pending.
Summary of Dispositions
- Ahmed's motion for leave to file a surreply: Granted - Defendants' partial motion to dismiss: Granted - HIPAA claim: Dismissed with prejudice - Informed consent claim: Dismissed without prejudice - Civil rights claim: Dismissed with prejudice - ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims: Not addressed; remain pending
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.