Loucks v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Background

The plaintiffs sued several defendants over circumstances surrounding Shawn Loucks’s death. They alleged that Mr. Loucks received medical care at Kaiser Santa Rosa on February 10 and 20, 2019, and died at a UCSF hospital on February 23, 2019. The plaintiffs alleged that Kaiser personnel consulted American Medical Response (AMR) about sending a critical-care ambulance, that AMR promised to send one, and that AMR then refused to do so without notifying anyone. According to the complaint, Kaiser personnel had to search for another ambulance, which arrived from Sacramento.

The plaintiffs asserted claims against AMR for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, dependent adult abuse, and violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). AMR moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. AMR also moved for a more definite statement and asked the court to strike the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court held that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded an underlying negligence claim against AMR. Under California law, a bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress must be based on an underlying negligent injury to another person.

The court also applied California’s three requirements for a bystander emotional-distress claim: the plaintiff must be closely related to the injured person, must be present and contemporaneously aware that the event is causing injury, and must suffer serious emotional distress. The complaint did not identify the plaintiffs’ relationships to Mr. Loucks, although the opposition stated that Patricia Loucks was his wife, Ashley Loucks was his daughter, and Dawn Loucks was his mother. The court said those three plaintiffs might satisfy the relationship requirement if they amended the complaint to allege those relationships. The other plaintiffs were described as more distant relatives and did not identify the household relationship or public-policy circumstances needed for an exception.

The court further held that the plaintiffs did not have the required contemporaneous sensory awareness of AMR’s alleged conduct because they learned about AMR’s decision through Kaiser personnel. The court also found that the allegations of “extreme” and “severe” emotional distress were conclusory and lacked supporting facts. It dismissed the negligent-infliction claim with leave to amend, while dismissing the claims of the named plaintiffs other than Patricia, Ashley, and Dawn Loucks with prejudice.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The complaint described “intentional misconduct,” but did not identify an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. The plaintiffs attempted to characterize that claim as intentional infliction of emotional distress in their opposition brief. The court held that the claim was subject to dismissal because it was not pleaded in the complaint. The court further stated that the claim would fail even if it had been identified properly because the allegations did not show that AMR directed its conduct at the plaintiffs or knew they were present.

The court dismissed the intentional-infliction claim with prejudice.

Dependent Adult Abuse

The court explained that California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act requires more than ordinary or professional negligence. For neglect or abandonment, the defendant must have had “care or custody” of the dependent adult, meaning a relationship in which the defendant assumed significant responsibility for the person’s basic needs.

The plaintiffs alleged that AMR refused to send the ambulance, but the court found that they did not allege a custodial relationship. Based on the allegations, AMR never met Mr. Loucks and never took care or custody of him. The court concluded that a possible future transportation relationship was not the existing caregiving relationship required by the statute. It dismissed the dependent-adult-abuse claim with prejudice.

EMTALA

The court held that EMTALA’s private right of action applies to participating hospitals. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that AMR could be liable as Kaiser’s agent because AMR was a private ambulance company rather than a hospital, and because the alleged decision not to respond was made by AMR rather than by the hospital. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not explain how AMR violated EMTALA’s screening or stabilization requirements.

The court dismissed the EMTALA claim against AMR with prejudice.

Other Motions and Disposition

Because all claims against AMR were dismissed, the court denied AMR’s motion for a more definite statement as moot. The court granted AMR’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages because the claims for which punitive damages could be sought had been dismissed with prejudice.

Judge Edward M. Chen granted AMR’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety as to AMR. The negligent-infliction claim was dismissed with leave to amend, while the intentional-infliction, dependent-adult-abuse, and EMTALA claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court stated that any amended complaint had to be filed within 30 days.