Romero v. Bellevue Hospital

Background

Jesus M. Romero, Sr., appeared without a lawyer and sued Bellevue Hospital. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and cited the emergency-use authorization provisions in 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, federal criminal statutes, and New York City regulations concerning discrimination.

Romero alleged that on December 9, 2022, he, his 12-year-old son, and his son’s mother went to Bellevue’s Pediatric Dental Unit for the son’s scheduled appointment. An administrative clerk told them that the son had to wear a mask in the dental room. Romero said that the son would not wear a mask. According to the complaint, the clerk summoned hospital authorities, who escorted Romero and his family out without the son receiving treatment. Romero alleged that the incident caused him to make a scene in front of his son and left him emotionally distressed.

Romero argued that the mask requirement violated 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3. He also alleged that Bellevue violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He sought money damages and an order allowing him and his son to attend medical visits without masks and allowing more than one parent to accompany the son.

Claims on Behalf of Other People

The court held that Romero could not assert claims for his minor son or his son’s mother because only Romero was named in the caption and signed the complaint, and nothing showed that he was a lawyer. The court therefore treated the complaint as asserting claims only on Romero’s behalf.

Bellevue Hospital and the Health + Hospitals Corporation

The court ruled that Bellevue Hospital is a facility operated by the New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation and lacks the legal capacity to be sued separately. The court dismissed Romero’s claims against Bellevue Hospital and construed them as claims directed toward the Health + Hospitals Corporation.

The court explained that a municipal entity cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely because one employee or agent allegedly acted improperly. A plaintiff must allege facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation of constitutional rights. The court granted Romero leave to file an amended complaint naming the Health + Hospitals Corporation and alleging facts supporting such a municipal-liability claim.

Disability-Discrimination Claims

The court discussed Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the similar disability-discrimination provision of the Rehabilitation Act. It stated that a plaintiff generally must show that he is a qualified person with a disability, that the defendant is covered by the relevant law, and that he was denied services or otherwise discriminated against because of his disability.

The court found that Romero had not alleged facts showing that he had a disability. Even assuming that he had a disability and was protected by these laws, the court found that he had not alleged facts showing that the hospital required masks because of his disability or otherwise discriminated against him because of a disability. The court granted Romero leave to amend these claims by alleging facts addressing the required elements.

Emergency-Use Authorization Claim

The court dismissed Romero’s claim under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3 for failure to state a claim. It explained that this statute establishes a framework for the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency authorization of products but does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to enforce alleged violations of that framework.

Federal Criminal Statutes

Romero cited 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The court dismissed any claims seeking to enforce federal criminal laws because a private person cannot initiate an arrest or prosecution in federal court or require prosecutors to bring a criminal case. The court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

Romero also cited New York City regulations concerning discrimination. Because the court granted leave to amend, it did not decide at this stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

The court gave Romero 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must repeat any facts or claims Romero wants the court to consider. The court directed him to provide relevant facts, the identities and titles of relevant people, the approximate dates and locations of events, his injuries, and the relief requested. If he did not amend within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.