Edwards v. Feldman

Background

Theodore Brandon Edwards, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Orange County, Dr. Feldman, K. Georgy, R.N., and Orange Regional Medical Center. He alleged that Orange Regional Medical Center performed testing that he believed was unrelated to possible cancer in his left testicle, that he did not receive the test results, that the testing caused discomfort and symptoms he described as radiation sickness, and that Dr. Feldman disclosed information about the testing in front of another inmate. He also alleged that Nurse Georgy failed to ensure that he received a follow-up appointment.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. Edwards did not oppose the motions, so the court treated them as unopposed. The court liberally interpreted the complaint as asserting four types of claims: a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act claim against Dr. Feldman; constitutional privacy claims against Dr. Feldman and Orange County; a constitutional medical-care claim against Nurse Georgy, Orange County, and Orange Regional Medical Center; and a state medical-malpractice claim against Orange Regional Medical Center and/or an unidentified doctor.

Federal Claims

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The court held that this federal health-privacy law does not provide an express or implied private right of action. It therefore granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss Edwards’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act claim with prejudice.

Constitutional privacy claim. The court treated Edwards’s allegations about Dr. Feldman’s disclosure as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. The court explained that constitutional protection for medical information is not absolute and that, in this context, the alleged conduct must be sufficiently egregious to “shock the conscience.” The court concluded that the allegations could suggest careless or negligent conduct, but did not meet that standard. It granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the privacy claim against Dr. Feldman; the opinion did not attach a prejudice designation to that dismissal.

Medical-care claim. The court assumed, without deciding, that Edwards adequately alleged the required state of mind for a deliberate-indifference claim. It nevertheless found that he did not allege an objectively serious harm from the delay in obtaining a follow-up appointment. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim against Nurse Georgy without prejudice.

Claims against Orange County. The court held that Edwards did not allege facts showing that either individual defendant acted under an Orange County policy, custom, practice, or failure to train or supervise. Under the rule for municipal liability, a county generally cannot be held responsible solely because one of its employees allegedly committed a constitutional violation. The court granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against Orange County without prejudice.

Claims against Orange Regional Medical Center. The court held that Edwards did not plausibly allege that Orange Regional Medical Center or its employees were state actors for purposes of Section 1983. The court found no alleged state coercion, sufficiently close state involvement, or performance of a function traditionally reserved exclusively to the state. It granted Orange Regional Medical Center’s motion to dismiss the Section 1983 claim against it with prejudice. The court also stated that claims against the unidentified urologist, to the extent that person was employed by Orange Regional Medical Center, were dismissed with prejudice for the same reason.

State Medical-Malpractice Claim

The court held that Edwards did not allege facts showing that the discomfort, alleged radiation-related symptoms, or delay in receiving results resulted from a departure from accepted medical practice. Although the alleged erroneous testing might suggest negligence, Edwards did not allege that the error caused an actual injury. The court also alternatively declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over the state-law claim based on the federal claims, because the federal claims were not adequately pleaded. It granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the medical-malpractice claim without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. It allowed Edwards to file an amended complaint by March 23, 2020, concerning claims that had not been dismissed with prejudice. If he did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the remaining claims would be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions and mail Edwards a copy of the opinion and order.