Gorbey ex rel. Maddox v. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Docket: Civil Action No. 11-11259-NMG
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; March 16, 2012; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs Andrew Gorbey and Keenan Stapleton, represented by their mothers, are suing multiple defendants under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act for allegedly publishing a misleading article regarding brachial plexus injuries. Gorbey and Stapleton sustained permanent brachial plexus injuries at birth, typically caused by excessive traction during delivery, particularly in cases of shoulder dystocia. The Lerner-Salamon article, coauthored by Drs. Eva Salamon and Henry Lerner, claimed that such injuries could occur without physician traction or shoulder dystocia, presenting a case study that contradicted established medical understanding. This article was cited by their respective delivering physicians in prior medical malpractice trials, where both plaintiffs lost; the defendants argued that the injuries resulted from natural uterine contractions rather than physician actions. The plaintiffs contend that the article is inaccurate and misleading, as it conflicts with hospital records and testimonies from the malpractice cases. Currently, the Court is considering three motions to dismiss and a motion to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Lerner authored an article without reviewing critical labor and delivery notes and that Elsevier was notified of evidence contradicting the article shortly after publication but chose not to retract or clarify it. They claim the defendants’ actions—including writing, submitting, and publishing the article, along with the failure to retract it—amount to unfair or deceptive practices under Chapter 93A. The plaintiffs argue that they would have succeeded in medical malpractice trials if not for the article's use by the defense. They seek $3 million each for unjust deprivation at trial and an order to prevent the article's use in future litigation.
Defendants have moved to dismiss, claiming the complaint doesn't state a valid claim, with Salamon and The Bond Clinic additionally contesting personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs oppose the dismissal and seek to amend their complaint to include a fraud claim, which defendants argue is futile. The Court has granted an extension for the plaintiffs to respond but noted they have not done so. A scheduling conference was held, but pretrial deadlines were not established due to the pending dismissal motions.
The legal standard for a motion to dismiss requires that a complaint must present sufficient factual matter to plausibly state a claim for relief. The Court can only consider facts in the pleadings and must accept all allegations as true. However, legal conclusions cannot be presumed true, and mere conclusory statements are insufficient for a claim. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not established a causal link between the alleged unfair acts and their claimed injuries, and the Court concurs, deciding to dismiss the complaint. A valid Chapter 93A claim necessitates demonstrating a deceptive act by the defendant, an injury to the plaintiff, and a causal connection between the two, which the plaintiffs failed to provide.
Causation is a necessary element for a successful claim under Massachusetts Chapter 93A, as established by case law. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendant's unfair or deceptive act directly caused them harm or loss. In the case of Tyler v. Michaels Stores, plaintiffs allege that a fraudulent medical article published by defendants led to adverse outcomes in their medical malpractice cases. They argue that the article was relied upon by defendant-physicians during trials, which contributed to their inability to win damages.
To substantiate the causation element, the plaintiffs needed to provide factual evidence that the article materially influenced jury verdicts. However, their allegations lack sufficient detail regarding how the article was utilized in court, what specific testimonies were presented, or what other evidence was considered. The mere introduction of the article does not establish a reasonable inference of its materiality, as it only suggests a possibility of causation without confirming it.
Additionally, an appellate decision in a related malpractice case indicated that the article's admission did not prejudice the plaintiff's case, further undermining the plaintiffs' claims. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish a direct link between their claimed injury and any deceptive conduct by the defendants, leading to the granting of the defendants' motions to dismiss the case.
Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to include a fraud count, requiring demonstration of a false representation of material fact by defendants, knowledge of its falsity, intent to induce reliance, reasonable reliance by plaintiffs, and resultant damages. However, plaintiffs did not claim they relied on any misrepresentation; instead, they argued that third parties did, leading to their injuries. No legal precedent was provided to support third-party reliance claims under Massachusetts law. Furthermore, the allegations failed to imply any reasonable reliance by the jury that would connect to plaintiffs' losses. Thus, the proposed amendment was deemed futile and the motion to amend was denied. Additionally, the court granted motions to dismiss from multiple defendants. The document notes a related medical malpractice case against Dr. Salamon, which was settled prior to trial, and dismissed the notion that defense counsel's reliance on a report constituted a valid claim, as it lacked supporting evidence.
