Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Didonato v. Panatera

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

August 20, 2019

KYLIE DIDONATO, Plaintiff,
v.
TIM PANATERA and CITY OF CHIACGO, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          HON. VIRGINIA M. KENDALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Kylie DiDonato brings this suit against paramedic/emergency medical technician (“EMT”) Tim Panatera and the City of Chicago based on an alleged incident in Panatera's home. DiDonato claims that after she slipped in a puddle of water in Panatera's bathroom and hit her head on the bathtub, Panatera failed to provide her with proper medical care and instead sexually assaulted her while she was in and out of consciousness. Panatera and the City of Chicago separately move to dismiss DiDonato's Section 1983 claim (Count IV) and her claim for willful and wanton misconduct (Count V) under Rule 12(b)(6).

         For the reasons stated here, the Court grants the City's [Dkt. 17] and Panatera's [Dkt. 19] motions to dismiss as to the Section 1983 claims only. DiDonato's Section 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice as to both defendants. DiDonato may amend her complaint consistent with this Opinion, if possible, within 21 days of the publication of this Opinion.

         BACKGROUND

         The following factual allegations are taken from the complaint (Dkt. 1-1) and are assumed true for purposes of this motion. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schumacher, 844 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2016).

         Defendant Tim Panatera is a paramedic/EMT employed by the City of Chicago. (Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 8.) On March 18, 2018, Panatera invited Plaintiff Kylie DiDonato to his home in Chicago. (Id. ¶ 10-11.) Either late that evening or sometime after midnight, DiDonato slipped and fell in a puddle of water on Panatera's bathroom floor and hit the back of her head on the bathtub. (Id. ¶ 12-13, 15, 27.) DiDonato lost a “considerable” amount of blood and suffered a concussion from the fall. (Id. ¶ 15.)

         Panatera entered the bathroom just after DiDonato fell, saw her bleeding, and said, “holy shit, that's bad.” (Id. ¶ 20.) Panatera picked DiDonato up from the floor, placed her in the bathtub to rinse the blood from her head, and wrapped her head with an unsterile bathroom towel. (Id. ¶ 21.) Panatera did not provide DiDonato with any further medical assistance-he did not call 911, contact his EMT unit, or take her to the emergency room for treatment. (Id. ¶¶ 21-25.)

         Panatera then helped DiDonato into his bed. (Id. ¶ 26.) DiDonato was barely conscious. (Id. ¶ 28.) Panatera “attempt[ed] to mount her in a sexual manner, ” at which point she lost consciousness. (Id.) Panatera woke DiDonato up the next morning. (Id. ¶ 29.) They were still in his bed. (Id.) While DiDonato was still in pain, groggy, and covered in dried blood, Panatera sexually assaulted her and had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her. (Id.) DiDonato lost consciousness again and stayed in Panatera's bed until the late afternoon, when he woke her up and told her it was time to leave. (Id. ¶ 30.) Panatera collected DiDonato's belongings, put a hat on her head to cover the dried blood, and drove her to her home in the west suburbs. (Id. ¶ 31.) When DiDonato got home, she contacted a friend who came over immediately and took her to the Adventist Hinsdale Hospital emergency room. (Id. ¶ 33-34.) DiDonato was treated for head trauma and a concussion. (Id. ¶ 34.)

         The day DiDonato visited Panatera's home, she heard him having a phone conversation with his work partner about work-related issues. (Id. ¶ 18.) Panatera was “on call” for his job as a Chicago EMT at the time of the call. (Id. ¶ 19.)

         DiDonato filed suit against Panatera in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on December 7, 2018. (See Dkt. 17.) She filed an amended complaint on March 18, 2019, adding the City of Chicago as a defendant. (Dkt. 1-1.) She brings claims against Panatera for negligence (Count I), assault (Count II), and battery (Count III), and claims against both Panatera and the City of Chicago for deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count IV) and willful and wanton misconduct (Count V). The City of Chicago timely removed the case to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 1446. Panatera and the City of Chicago now separately move to dismiss the Section 1983 and willful and wanton misconduct claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

         LEGAL STANDARD

         To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schumacher, 844 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true and draw all permissible inferences in Plaintiffs' favor. Id. However, “[w]hile a plaintiff need not plead ‘detailed factual allegations' to survive a motion to dismiss, she still must provide more than mere ‘labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action' for her complaint to be considered adequate under [Rule] 8.” Bell v. City of Chicago, 835 F.3d 736, 738 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

         DISCUSSION

         In her Section 1983 claim, DiDonato alleges that Panatera intentionally failed to provide her with necessary medical care in violation of her constitutional rights. (Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 47.) Both defendants argue that DiDonato's claim fails because there is generally no constitutional right to medical care and DiDonato has failed to plead facts showing that she qualifies for either of the two exceptions to that general rule. Panatera separately argues that DiDonato's claim fails because he was not acting under color of state law during the alleged events. The City separately argues that even if DiDonato states a Section 1983 claim ...


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.