Court: District Court, S.D. New York; August 22, 2014; Federal District Court
Defendants Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and Correct Care Solutions, along with their employees, are being sued by plaintiff Wesam El-Hanafl for failing to diagnose and treat his medical condition during his eleven-day detention at the Alexandria Detention Center. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint does not establish a Bivens claim and that El-Hanafl's state law claims are time-barred. The court examines whether private companies providing medical services under federal contract can be liable under Bivens, ultimately ruling against such an expansion as previously established in Supreme Court cases. Consequently, the court grants the motion to dismiss the federal claims and dismisses the state law claims due to timeliness.
El-Hanafl was detained by the Abu Dhabi Police at the direction of the U.S. government before being transferred to U.S. custody and subsequently transported to Dulles International Airport, where he first experienced a stinging sensation in his calf. After his arrival, he was arraigned and then held at the Alexandria Detention Center. Throughout his eleven days there, he reported ongoing pain, exercised to alleviate it, and sought medical attention from government agents and a clinician but received minimal care, including only ibuprofen, without a formal diagnosis or examination.
On May 11, 2010, El-Hanafi was transferred from the Alexandria Detention Center to a federal facility in Oklahoma City and later to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. He initiated legal action on March 28, 2013, culminating in a Third Amended Complaint filed on February 19, 2014, asserting five causes of action:
1. Denial of medical care and medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States.
2. Negligence in medical care delivery under the FTCA against the United States and state law against employees of the Alexandria Detention Center, Federal Transfer Center, Metropolitan Correction Center, and private entities CCS and Conmed.
3. Negligent enforcement of movement restrictions during flight under the FTCA and state law against various federal employees, including the Vice Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Dubai and FBI agents.
4. Negligent infliction of emotional distress under the FTCA against the United States and state law against relevant employees and entities.
5. A Bivens claim against employees of the aforementioned facilities and private entities.
On April 14, 2014, Conmed, CCS, and their employees filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them, specifically targeting the second, fourth, and fifth causes of action. El-Hanafi opposed this motion on June 6, 2013, with Conmed and CCS submitting a reply brief on June 20, 2013.
Regarding the motion to dismiss, the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint must contain sufficient factual content to establish a plausible claim for relief, moving beyond mere legal conclusions. The court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and infer in favor of the plaintiff, assessing whether the complaint presents enough facts to suggest a reasonable basis for the defendant's liability. Claims that present facts consistent with liability but do not cross into plausible entitlement will be dismissed.
El-Hanafi asserts a Bivens claim against Conmed and CCS for negligent medical care, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents established an implied right to sue federal officers for constitutional violations, but the Court has cautioned against extending this remedy to new contexts. In Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, it was determined that Bivens does not apply to private companies acting under federal law, as the focus on corporate defendants could detract from accountability for individual actions. The court finds no reason to deviate from this principle in El-Hanafi's case, leading to the dismissal of his claims against Conmed and CCS.
El-Hanafi also raises a Bivens claim against individual employees of Conmed and CCS, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs, which implicates Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. However, in Minneci v. Pollard, the Supreme Court declined to extend Bivens remedies to privately-employed prison staff for similar claims, citing adequate state tort laws that offer similar protections and deterrents. Thus, the claims against the employees of Conmed and CCS are also likely to face dismissal.
The Minneci decision establishes that federal prisoners seeking damages from privately employed personnel at privately operated federal prisons for alleged Eighth Amendment violations must pursue remedies under state tort law, as a Bivens remedy is not implied in such cases. El-Hanafi's claims against private company employees for negligent medical care fall squarely within this framework and are therefore barred. The Supreme Court indicated that state tort law provides similar incentives for compliance with the Eighth Amendment and compensates victims accordingly, which reinforces the dismissal of a Bivens claim when analogous state law remedies are available. Although El-Hanafi attempts to differentiate his situation by noting his incarceration at a state facility contracting with the federal government, the court finds this distinction insufficient to diverge from the Minneci precedent. The defendants, CCS and Conmed, are connected to local entities rather than directly to the federal government, suggesting an even greater distance from federal oversight, further supporting the dismissal of the Bivens claim. Consequently, El-Hanafi’s claims regarding improper medical care, which align with traditional state tort law, lead to the dismissal of his Bivens action against the employees of Conmed and CCS.
El-Hanafi's negligence claims (count two) and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims (count four) are based on state law. Conmed and CCS argue these claims are barred by Virginia's statute of limitations, while El-Hanafi contends New York law should apply, which would allow his claims to proceed. The court determines that Virginia law is applicable, resulting in the expiration of the statute of limitations for El-Hanafi's claims against Conmed, CCS, and their employees. Under Virginia law, the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is two years, compared to two and a half years in New York. Both states assert that a claim accrues at the time of injury rather than discovery of damage. El-Hanafi's claims are deemed to have accrued on May 11, 2010, when he was transferred from the Alexandria Detention Center, making his claims untimely since he filed on March 28, 2013, over four months after the deadline, even under New York’s more lenient timeline.
For the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, the applicable statute of limitations is three years in New York and two years in Virginia. The court must assess whether to apply New York law by exploring potential conflicts under New York's choice of law rules, which require a determination of actual conflicts between the jurisdictions' laws. Notably, New York does not mandate physical injury for such claims, while Virginia does, creating a significant divergence in the legal standards. As a result, the elements of the claims differ fundamentally, affecting the viability of El-Hanafi’s allegations.
A choice of law question arises regarding tort actions, including negligent infliction of emotional distress, where New York courts apply the substantive law of the jurisdiction with the most significant interest in the issue. New York courts differentiate between laws that regulate conduct, such as standards of care, and those that allocate losses after a tort occurs, like vicarious liability rules. For conduct-regulating laws, the law of the place where the tort occurred typically predominates, as it has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders. In this case, Virginia's law applies to the claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress since it is clearly conduct-regulating, focusing on preventing intentional or reckless actions that cause severe emotional distress. Despite the plaintiff, El-Hanafi, being born in New York and currently incarcerated there, Virginia's interest in the issue is deemed more significant. Under Virginia law, claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, beginning when the injury occurs. El-Hanafi filed his claim over ten months after this period expired, rendering it time-barred against Conmed, CCS, and their employees.
The motion to dismiss the complaint against Correct Care Solutions, Inc., Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc., their employees, and related parties has been granted. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 44 and dismiss these defendants from the case. Additionally, the defendants including the United States and various federal officials have sought a partial dismissal of claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Bivens, and state law, as noted in docket number 28. This order specifically addresses the motion to dismiss by Conmed, CCS, and their employees, referencing the facts from the plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Defendants argued that Conmed and CCS contracted with the City of Alexandria to provide medical services for federal inmates, with the City subsequently contracting with the federal government. The Court dismisses the Bivens claim against Conmed based on precedent set in Malesko, making it unnecessary to determine Conmed's role as a medical service provider during El-Hanafi’s confinement. Similarly, the dismissal of state law claims against Conmed is based on being time-barred, negating the need to investigate Conmed's service provision during that period.
