Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dawsonn v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 14, 2017

TERI DAWSON, Plaintiff,



         Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss negligence Count II and negligent infliction of emotional distress Count V, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); and, motion to strike pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f)(2) (Doc. 22).

         Plaintiff opposes (Doc. 38). Based on the following, defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and plaintiff is granted leave to amend.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Teri Dawson (“Dawson”) originally filed this action in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Jackson County, Illinois (Doc. 1-1). She asserts claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“N.E.I.D”) against Southern Illinois Healthcare d/b/a Memorial Hospital of Carbondale (“SIHS”), stemming from a surgical procedure that failed to properly seal a port closure[1] resulting in herniation and small bowel obstruction. Following surgery, Dawson sustained severe abdominal complications from an incisional hernia, and suffered nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and probable gastritis; and, now is diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety-all of which require psychological counseling, and prescription of antidepressant medications. For relief, Dawson requests monetary damages and costs.

         In defense, SIHS argues failure to sufficiently assert medical negligence and N.I.E.D. claims due to defective pleading (Doc. 22). Specifically, arguing that Dawson's required attorney's affidavit (Doc. 1-1 at 16-17), does not satisfy the pleading requirements of 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-622(a)(1); and, declaring the complaint-as a whole-fails to support allegations of institutional negligence (Doc. 22). As a result, SIHS requests the Court dismiss negligence Count II and N.I.E.D. Count V pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim (Id. at 3). In addition, SIHS contends that paragraph 34 and 35(a) & (d) of negligence Count II should be stricken because it owes no duty to ensure Dawson's safety or ensure doctors utilizing its facilities will not act negligently in caring for patients (Id. at 4); and, Count V should follow suit under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f)(2), because allegations in N.I.E.D. Count V mirror those in negligence Count II. (Id.).


         A. Rule 12(b)(6)

         Rule 12(b)(6) permits a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court explained in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), that Rule 12(6)(b) dismissal is warranted if the complaint fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Notice pleading remains all that is required in a complaint, even though federal pleading standards were overhauled by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). “A plaintiff still must provide only ‘enough detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests and, through his allegations, show that it is plausible, rather than merely speculative, that he is entitled to relief.' ” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

         The Seventh Circuit offers further instruction on what a civil action must allege to endure 12(b)(6) dismissal. In Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th Cir. 2008), the Court reiterated the standard: “surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion requires more than labels and conclusions”; the complaint's allegations must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” A plaintiff's claim “must be plausible on its face, ” that is, “the complaint must establish a non-negligible probability that the claim is valid.” Smith v. Med. Benefit Admin. Grp., Inc., 639 F.3d 277, 281 (7th Cir. 2011).

         B. Rule 12(f)

         Under Rule 12(f) the court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Motions to strike are generally disfavored but may be used to expedite a case and “remove unnecessary clutter.” Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989); see also Wiliams v. Jader Fuel Co., Inc., 944 F.2d 1388, 1400 (7th Cir. 1991) (stating motions to strike will not be granted unless it appears to certainty that plaintiffs would succeed despite any state of facts which could be proved in support of defense and are inferable from pleadings).

         III. ANALYSIS

         SIHS maintains Dawson failed to establish the author of her medical report met requisite qualifications of 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-622.[2] Dawson contends requirements specified in section 2-622 are inapplicable because her claims are based upon “institutional negligence” not “healing art malpractice;” and, even if ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.