Opinion
Case No. 2:02 CV 81 PGC.
May 4, 2003.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Plaintiff, Mr. Mazdzer, filed a motion to reconsider this court's ruling of December 6, 2002, granting defendant's motion to dismiss, and for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, and 56. The court has reviewed the pleadings carefully and determines that oral argument would not be helpful, and rules as follows. In light of the history of this case a brief overview of the facts and procedural history is warranted.
Statement of Facts
The essential facts of this case are undisputed. The plaintiff in this case, Matthew Mazdzer, is a 21-year-old resident of the State of Washington, born on January 31, 1980. For about five months in 1992, Mr. Mazdzer lived in Utah, at Teen Help Brightway and Majestic Ranch for Boys. Defendant Dan Peart is the director of the Majestic Ranch Academy, successor to the Majestic Ranch.
Teen Help (as opposed to Teen Help Brightway) is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Utah, with its principal place of business in St. George, Utah. Teen Help is referral service, which provides marketing for Majestic Ranch, Inc. Robert Lichfield is the owner, partner, shareholder, or director of Teen Help.
Teen Help Brightway at St. George is a separate entity with a principal place of business in St. George, Utah. Teen Help Brightway is an in-patient adolescent hospital that screened Teen Help candidates for placement in other facilities, such a the Majestic Ranch. At the time of the events in this lawsuit, Narvin Lichfield was the enrollment director for Teen Help Brightway. He dispensed the payments received from Mr. Mazdzer, between Teen Help and Majestic Ranch. Robert Lichfield is the owner, partner, shareholder or director of Teen Help Brightway as well.
In 1992, Mr. Mazdzer's mother sought placement of her son at Majestic Ranch due to problems she was having with him following an acrimonious divorce. She was advised that entry into Majestic Ranch needed to be facilitated through Teen Help in order to qualify for insurance coverage. She was directed to contact Narvin Lichfield to make arrangements to apply for admission to Teen Help Brightway.
Mr. Mazdzer was placed at Teen Help Brightway for six weeks. His insurance policy paid a rate of $695 per day for room and board, and additional fees for therapy. Mr. Mazdzer was given a Psychiatric Evaluation, a Social Assessment, a Psychological Evaluation, and a History and Physical Examination. Matthew Mazdzer was diagnosed as bi-polar while at Teen Help Brightway, and placed on medication. Mr. Mazdzer's counselor at Teen Help Brightway developed a Master Treatment Plan based on the evaluations of Mr. Mazdzer which included "aftercare" at Majestic Ranch's residential treatment center for boys in Randolph, Utah. Teen Help Brightway recommended that Mr. Mazdzer's problems, goals, and methods were to be continued and transferred to the staff at Majestic Ranch for further work in individual, group and family therapy under the direction of Dave Conley, Ph.D.
On March 19, 1992, Matthew was transported to Majestic Ranch for after-care. Teen Help facilitated payment of the Majestic Ranch costs. While staying at Majestic Ranch, Matthew Mazdzer was alleged sexually assaulted by a staff member. Mr. Mazdzer returned to the State of Washington in 1992.
Procedural History
In January, 2002, Mr. Mazdzer filed this complaint alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional tort of "outrage," negligent supervision and retention, racketeering, and civil conspiracy, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
In June 2002, the defendants who had been served — Teen Help, Teen Help Brightway, and Robert Lichfield — moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6), based on a violation of the statute of limitations established by the Utah Malpractice Actions Against Health Care Providers Act.
§ 78-14-1 et seq.
In July, 2002, Mr. Mazdzer settled his claims against Majestic Ranch, Inc., Majestic Ranch Academy, and Dan Peart. The dismissed defendants admitted no liability in the matter, and the claims against them were dismissed with prejudice.
Mr. Mazdzer then responded to the motion to dismiss from Teen Help et al. by asking for an extension of time for additional discovery regarding the relationship between the defendant entities. At oral argument on the motion to dismiss, the court requested Mr. Mazdzer specify what discovery was missing, and Mr. Mazdzer could not specify the type of discovery sought. In December 2002, this court denied the motion for additional discovery, and granted the motion to dismiss based on a determination that Teen Help and Robert Lichfield were acting as an "agents" for Teen Help Brightway in this matter, and thus were "health care providers" covered by the Utah Malpractice Actions Against Health Care Providers Act.
In January 2003, Mr. Mazdzer filed the pending motion to reconsider, alleging newly discovered evidence, a need to correct clear error, a new Utah case interpreting the Malpractice Act, and to prevent manifest injustice.
Standard of Review
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence. No such basis is presented here.
Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997).
1. Teen Help's Relationship with Majestic Ranch
Mr. Mazdzer argues that the affidavit of Jean (Schulter) Foye presents "newly discovered evidence" that Teen Help had an agency relationship with Majestic Ranch, and Teen Help Brightway. This court previously ruled that the agency relationship with Teen Help Brightway placed Teen Help under the purview of the Malpractice Act's statute of limitations. Mr. Mazdzer contends that Teen Help acted as an agent for Majestic Ranch as well. He argues that Majestic Ranch is not a health care provider, and thus not subject to the statutory limitations of the Malpractice Act. He further argues that the affidavit of Ms. Foye proves the agency relationship between Majestic Ranch and Teen Help.
Ms. Foye was the manager of Teen Help and responsible for the books and records of Teen Help in 1996. Ms. Foye stated that Teen Help was in the business of providing contract services to a number of programs for troubled teens. She specifies the programs are not owned or controlled by Teen Help. Ms. Foye states:
The contract services Teen Help provides to the programs include a parent help line, enrollment service for the programs Teen Help is contracted with, and public relations services for the programs. These services have been provided to various programs for troubled teens since at least 1996. In 1996, and 1997, Teen Help also prescreened some of the teens for referral to the medical and psychiatric screening services available at Brightway Adolescent Hospital.
The motion for reconsideration will be denied for several reasons. First, the affidavit does not specify whether Ms. Foye even worked for Teen Help in 1992, the time when the incidents involving Mr. Mazdzer allegedly occurred, so the basis for her knowledge is unclear. Second, the affidavit provides no specific information on what the relationship between Teen Help and Majestic Ranch was in 1992, making it irrelevant. Third, nowhere does the affidavit even remotely describe an agency relationship existed between Majestic Ranch and Teen Help. In fact, it implies there was no agency relationship later in 1996 by stating, "The programs are not owned or controlled by Teen Help." Fourth, Ms. Foye's affidavit has been available for almost three years (since June 2000). Mr. Mazdzer has asserted neither that the affidavit was previously unavailable nor that a "diligent yet unsuccessful attempt to discovery the evidence" was made. Finally, the issue of a dual agency relationship between Teen Help, and Majestic Ranch was never raised by Mr. Mazdzer in any of his prior pleadings. This is a motion for reconsideration, and court can only reconsider matters previously properly presented to it.
Webber v. Mefford, 43 F.3d 1340, 1345 (10th Cir. 1994).
In any event, even if an agency relationship existed between Teen Help and Majestic Ranch, the court agrees that the basis for Mr. Mazdzer's complaint was the alleged negligent care and treatment he received at Teen Help Brightway and aftercare at Majestic Ranch. Teen Help's relationship with Majestic Ranch does not alter the basic elements of this complaint. This complaint is not that Teen Help, as the alleged agent for Majestic Ranch, is liable for the intentional torts of its principal. The claim remains that Teen Help negligently sent Mr. Mazdzer to Brightway, which in turn sent Mr. Mazdzer to Majestic Ranch — a claim governed by the Malpractice Act. Mr. Mazdzer is attempting to argue essentially a respondeat inferior claim, unsupported by any law. Other courts however have specifically dismissed such attempts, and their logic applies here as well.
See Speer v. Taira Lynn Marine, 116 F. Supp.2d 826, 830 (S.D.Tex. 2000); Davis v. Hoffman, 972 F. Supp. 398, 314 (E.D.Pa. 1997); Flaherty v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 808 F. Supp. 55, 61 (D.Mass 1992).
For all these reasons, this affidavit provides no good reason for the court to reconsider its earlier rulings. This court's prior findings were based strictly on the undisputed facts presented, most notably that Teen Help facilitated the insurance coverage of Mr. Mazdzer while at Teen Help Brightway. The court made no findings regarding the relationship between Teen Help and any other facilities or programs or individuals, as that issue was not presented.
2002 UT App 372, 58 P.3d 877, cert granted, 65 P.3d 1190.
Mr. Mazdzer argues that the Utah Court of Appeals ruling in Dowling v. Bullen compels a different result in this case. Because the decision was handed down on November 7, 2002, and was not briefed are argued before the court, Mr. Mazdzer contends that reconsideration is appropriate.
In Dowling, the plaintiff's daughter had been in treatment with the defendant, a social worker. During the course of her daughter's treatment, the defendant social worker and the plaintiff's husband became romantically involved and subsequently married. Dowling held that "the Act requires that the health care in question must have been provided to the complaining patient." Since the gravamen of the complaint was plaintiff's claim, not the patient's (her husband), the Act did not apply. The Utah Supreme Court has since granted certiorari in Dowling, but regardless of how the issue is resolved, it says little about the present case. In this case, Mr. Mazdzer is both the patient and the plaintiff. The gravamen of his claim is that Brightway improperly labeled him as mentally ill, performed below standard medical treatment and psychological evaluations, then negligently enrolled him in aftercare at Majestic Ranch where he was allegedly sexually abused. Mr. Mazdzer's attempt to recast his cause of action to avoid application of the Malpractice Act is no more successful after Dowling than before.
Id. at 9.
See Carter v. Milford Valley Mem. Hosp., 996 P.2d 1076, 1078-79 (Ut. Ct. App. 2000).
In view of the fact that other litigation is pending concerning some of the parties before the court, the court will emphasize that it is ruling only on the narrow issues presented in this case — e.g., whether the Malpractice Act applies to this plaintiff and this complaint. Here, Mr. Mazdzer waited almost ten years after his departure from Majestic Ranch to file this case. The Malpractice Act and its provisions dictate dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against the defendants who have been served.
Unserved Defendants
The court previously granted Mr. Mazdzer additional time (until February 1, 2003) to serve any remaining defendant — specifically, Narvin Lichfield. Mr. Mazdzer must show cause why he should not be dismissed from this case within 10 days of this order.
CONCLUSION
The court DENIES Mr. Mazdzer's motion to reconsider. Mr. Mazdzer must show cause as to why Narvin Lichfield should not be dismissed from this case within ten days.
SO ORDERED.