Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : EARTHA M. HALL : v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution in this action alleging delay and denial of Medicaid coverage is Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) or (6). The issues are fully : Civil Action No. DKC 2001-1516 :

briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary.1 For the following reasons, the

motion to dismiss will be granted as to the federal claims and the remaining state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice. I. Background The following facts are alleged in the complaint by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's complaint arises out of the delay or denial of Medicaid coverage. Assistance with the On August 1, 2000, Hall applied for Medical Prince George's County Social Service Emma

Department (PGSSD) on the ground that she was disabled.
1

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave of Court to file Addendum to Plaintiff's Motion to Deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The court construes the document to be a surreply due to its explicit reference to the Defendant's Reply memorandum and Plaintiff's admission in her response that it is a surreply. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, surreply memoranda are not permitted to be filed. See Local Rule 105.2(a). Therefore, the surreply will not be considered by the court.

Coles, an employee of PGSSD, requested medical records that had been submitted by Hall. Coles denied Hall's application for

Medical Assistance on the incorrect ground that Hall had not submitted her medical records. In October 2001, Jane Foust, a

Medical Assistance Appeals Officer of the PGSSD, contacted Hall and told Hall that she would assist her. Foust asked Hall to withdraw Hall

her appeal, based on Foust's assurances of assistance.

withdrew her appeal and on November 15, 2000, Foust asked Hall to send her Hall's medical bills and records. Hall contacted Foust to inquire about the status of her case and Foust told her she was able to go to the hospital and Medicaid would take care of the bills. Foust sent Hall a twenty dollar voucher and told her that

her Medicaid card would be activated within weeks. Hall was denied medical services due to the fact that her card was not activated. On January 10, 2001, Hall requested an administrative hearing because she believed that PGSSD failed to act on her request for Medical Assistance. On February 15, 2001, Hall cancelled eye

surgery because she was without medical coverage, resulting in permanent damage to her right eye. On February 23, 2001, the State

Review Team found that Hall was disabled and eligible for Medical Assistance from August 1, 2000, the original date of her

application for coverage.

On March 1, 2001, Hall appeared at a

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge where it was determined that the coverage would not be effective because Hall had not

2

provided bills in excess of her Spenddown amount. followed. II. Standard of Review

This litigation

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ought not be granted unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." (1957). Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

All that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require of

a complaint is that it contain "`a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957); Comet Enters. Ltd. v. Air-APlane Corp., 128 F.3d 855, 860 (4th Cir. 1997). "Given the Federal

Rules' simplified standard for pleading, `[a] court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations.'"

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. __ ,__ , 122

S.Ct. 992, 988, 2002 WL 261807, at **5 (2002), quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). In reviewing the complaint, the court accepts all well-pled allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Cir. 1997). Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 473 (4th

The court must disregard the contrary allegations of 3

the opposing party. (4th Cir. 1969).

A.S. Abell Co. v. Chell, 412 F.2d 712, 715

The court need not, however, accept unsupported

legal conclusions, Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual

allegations, Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979). III. Analysis A. Federal Claims

Defendants move to dismiss the claims under 42 U.S.C.

Download Eartha M. Hall v. Prince George's County, et al..pdf

Maryland Law