Rosenthal v. AETNA Health Inc.

Background

In November 2020, Robert Rosenthal, proceeding without a lawyer, sued AETNA Health Inc. in New York state court. He alleged that the defendant breached a contract by failing to reimburse him under a Medicare preferred-provider organization agreement for medical care he received in Jerusalem for a grand mal stroke in December 2019. The defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity and federal-question jurisdiction. The opinion identifies the defendant in the factual background as Aetna Life Insurance Company, pleaded as Aetna Health Inc.

Procedural History

Rosenthal did not timely respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein extended the response deadline and warned that failure to respond could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Rosenthal still did not respond. After the magistrate judge ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed, Rosenthal submitted a brief statement saying dismissal was not warranted.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Rosenthal objected and said that he had suffered a stroke in January 2021, but he did not explain how the stroke prevented him from prosecuting the action or why he had not included that explanation in his earlier response. Judge Daniels sent the matter back for further consideration of whether the stroke had impeded Rosenthal’s ability to respond. The magistrate judge then ordered Rosenthal to explain the effect of the stroke and to submit arguments responding to the motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge again recommended dismissal, finding that Rosenthal had not provided a reasonable explanation. Rosenthal filed no objection to that second recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

When a party does not object, a district court reviews the disputed report for clear error. Clear error means that the court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made after reviewing the record. Judge Daniels noted that the court had previously found no error in the first recommendation and that Rosenthal had been given ample opportunities to explain his failure to participate. The court also noted that Rosenthal had not communicated with it for almost two and a half years.

Disposition

Judge Daniels found no clear error, adopted the second report and recommendation, and dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The clerk was directed to close the action and mail Rosenthal a copy of the decision. The opinion did not decide whether Rosenthal was entitled to reimbursement under the Medicare agreement.