Schinella v. Soyer

Background

Beth Schinella brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Dutchess County, George Salem, Jr., and Dr. Adam Soyer. The opinion states that Schinella suffered right-wrist and right-shoulder injuries in a February 6, 2011, workplace slip-and-fall. Dutchess County and Salem initially accepted the injury as covered under General Municipal Law § 207-C and workers’ compensation law.

After Dr. Soyer examined Schinella, he initially concluded that she had permanent injuries. County officials and Salem then hired private investigators to conduct surveillance. Based on the surveillance, Dr. Soyer withdrew his opinion about the permanent injuries, and the defendants pursued a fraud allegation under § 114-a of New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded Schinella a schedule-loss-of-use award and rejected the fraud charge. The Workers’ Compensation Board later upheld that decision, and the defendants paid the amounts owed, including interest and attorneys’ fees.

Dr. Soyer’s motion to dismiss an earlier claim against him was granted without prejudice, and the court later ordered the action against him discontinued with prejudice. The court also dismissed Schinella’s later Monell claim. The motion addressed in this opinion was brought by Dutchess County and Salem for summary judgment on Schinella’s remaining claims.

Rulings on the claims

Section 1983 malicious criminal prosecution

The court treated Schinella’s first claim, although labeled a due-process claim, as a claim under § 1983 for malicious criminal prosecution. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants because no criminal proceeding had ever been brought against Schinella. The court also held that she had not shown a Fourth Amendment seizure or other deprivation of liberty: she was never taken into custody, imprisoned, physically detained, or seized. The possibility of a future criminal prosecution or fine did not satisfy that requirement.

New York constitutional due process

The court granted summary judgment on Schinella’s state constitutional due-process claim. It held that she had not identified a vested property interest in the schedule-loss-of-use award before the Board issued its decision. The court further stated that, even assuming she had such an interest, she received notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest the matter before the Board. The defendants’ decision to appeal did not constitute the kind of shocking or egregious conduct required for a substantive due-process claim.

Section 1983 malicious civil prosecution

The court granted summary judgment on Schinella’s § 1983 malicious-civil-prosecution claim. The court explained that the Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government, which was not a defendant, and that a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim also requires a Fourth Amendment seizure or comparable interference with liberty or privacy interests. Schinella was not imprisoned or detained, was not subjected to a criminal prosecution, and did not establish the required constitutional deprivation.

New York malicious civil prosecution

The court granted summary judgment on Schinella’s state-law malicious-civil-prosecution claim. New York law required her to show a special injury—harm substantially beyond the ordinary burdens of defending a civil proceeding. The court held that the delayed payment of the award did not qualify because the defendants were permitted to withhold payment while the appeal was pending. It also held that borrowing money, missing mortgage payments, emotional distress, shame, humiliation, reputational harm, and fear of possible consequences did not establish the required special injury on the facts presented.

New York malicious criminal prosecution

The court granted summary judgment on Schinella’s state-law malicious-criminal-prosecution claim because no criminal proceeding had been initiated against her. The court held that the potential for a fine or a later criminal prosecution did not change what actually occurred.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Dutchess County and Salem, terminate the motion at ECF No. 78, and terminate the case.