Lee v. Fairview Health Services

Background

Claire Jean Lee, representing herself, sued Fairview Health Services and Fairview Southdale Hospital based on her treatment at Fairview’s emergency room on January 10–11, 2015. Lee alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She sought a declaration, an order requiring action, and money damages.

Lee went to the emergency room for abdominal pain and was examined, given laboratory testing, referred for follow-up care, and given medication instructions. She also spoke with licensed social workers. She was discharged, returned to the emergency room, and was examined again. The second examination included additional testing and review of her medical history; the treating physician concluded that no emergency treatment or surgery was medically necessary. Lee was discharged again and escorted to the patient parking area by security.

Fairview moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Lee did not respond to the motion or attend the hearing. The court stated that it still had to determine whether Fairview was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Disability Claims

The court rejected Lee’s claims that Fairview retaliated against her or failed to reasonably accommodate her disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. For purposes of her claims for money damages, Lee had to show that Fairview was deliberately indifferent to rights protected by those laws.

The court held that Lee had not shown an adverse action, an essential part of her retaliation claim. The record showed that she was treated twice within hours, received examinations and laboratory testing, received follow-up instructions, and was given several opportunities to speak with a licensed social worker. The court also found no evidence that Lee received care different from that provided to similarly situated patients. Lee did not identify a specific accommodation request that Fairview denied. The court therefore entered judgment for Fairview on the disability claims.

Emergency Treatment Claim

The court also rejected Lee’s claim under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The statute requires hospitals with emergency rooms to provide an appropriate medical screening and, when required, stabilization. It does not guarantee a correct diagnosis or create a federal medical-malpractice claim.

The court found that Fairview admitted Lee as an emergency patient twice, performed physical examinations, ordered laboratory testing, reviewed her medical history, provided medication instructions, and supplied a social worker when she requested one. The record did not show that Fairview treated Lee differently from similarly situated patients or failed to follow its treatment procedures. The court also found no evidence that Fairview failed to stabilize her or assess whether stabilization was needed.

Minnesota Government Data Practices Act

The court held that Lee’s claim under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act failed because she offered no evidence that Fairview was a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision. The court concluded that Fairview was therefore not a government entity covered by that statute. Its participation in Medicaid and Medicare did not change that conclusion.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court held that Fairview’s conduct did not meet the demanding standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such a claim requires conduct so extreme that it is utterly intolerable in a civilized community or so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

The court found that Fairview treated Lee medically twice, allowed her to remain in its lobby overnight and during the morning, allowed her to use the telephone, and provided access to licensed social workers. Although Lee was dissatisfied with her experience, the court found no evidence of a severe or egregious indignity or conduct that was utterly intolerable.

Disposition

The court granted Fairview’s motion for summary judgment. It also ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.