Vetere v. City of New York

Background

Margaret Vetere, representing herself, sued the City of New York, identified in the caption as the City’s Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services and Bellevue Hospital Center Billing Department. She alleged that, without her consent, an unknown person submitted a Medicaid application for her after her Bellevue inpatient stay from December 23, 2009, to January 6, 2010. She said she had told hospital staff that she did not want Medicaid and did not want to pay her hospital bills. She alleged violations of New York Social Services Law § 366-b, Medicaid fraud, and privacy rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). She sought $1.5 million in damages.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a complaint filed without prepaying court fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court treated Vetere’s constitutional allegations as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy for violating federal rights while acting under state law. It held that Vetere’s main allegation—that Bellevue, the Human Resources Administration, and the Department of Social Services violated New York Social Services Law § 366-b—did not show a violation of the Constitution or federal law. A violation of state law, by itself, is not a § 1983 claim. The court also noted in a footnote that the allegations appeared likely to be untimely because the events occurred in 2010 and the action was filed more than nine years later.

The court said Vetere’s allegations did not suggest Medicaid fraud as described by the complaint. But even if they were treated as claims under the federal health-care fraud law, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, that law does not give private individuals a right to sue. The court likewise held that HIPAA does not provide a private cause of action allowing an individual to sue for alleged violations or seek damages, and it found the allegations insufficient to show a HIPAA violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending matters. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.