Budik v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
937 F. Supp. 2d 5
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Edith Budik, proceeding pro se, sues Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and Col. Princiotta alleging Title VII, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, misrepresentation, fraud, and IIED related to a neuroradiology employment application.
- The dispute centers on Budik’s credentialing/locum tenens process at Dartmouth-Hitchcock in New Hampshire, including a three-day site visit and discussions with credentialing staff.
- Dartmouth-Hitchcock submitted a credentialing letter to the New Hampshire Board of Medicine and the plaintiff sought a locum tenens license; she later pursued a permanent license.
- Col. Princiotta allegedly published a negative performance statement about Budik without providing a copy or obtaining consent.
- Dartmouth-Hitchcock halted credentialing on receipt of the negative rating and later cited remote incidents from 23 and 32 years prior as the basis for its decision.
- Budik’s NH Human Rights Commission complaints found no probable cause and the EEOC adopted those findings; Budik filed the present federal suit which defendants move to dismiss/substitute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Dartmouth-Hitchcock | Budik argues presence in DC connects DHMC to the forum. | DHMC contends no DC contacts satisfy long-arm provisions. | DC long-arm not satisfied; no jurisdiction over DHMC. |
| Substitution under FTCA for Budik’s second/third claims | Budik disputes FTCA substitution of United States. | Certification shows scope-of-employment; substitution appropriate. | United States substituted under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2). |
| Subject matter jurisdiction over FTCA claims | FTCA permits her claims notwithstanding other theories. | FTCA bars libel/slander-type claims and no exhaustion. | FTCA bars second/third claims; no subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims | Government actions violated due process; injury to reputation may matter. | No government action deprived employment; reputation injuries not liberty interest. | No procedural due process violation; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings; but must plead a claim for relief)
- Chandler v. Roche, 215 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2002) (liberal pleading standard for pro se plaintiffs)
- Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (pro se pleading standards)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing and jurisdiction principles)
- American National Bank v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (subject-matter jurisdiction standards on jurisdictional challenges)
- GTE New Media Servs., Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (personal jurisdiction – bare conclusory claims insufficient)
- First Chicago Int’l v. United Exch. Co., 836 F.2d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (prima facie showing of jurisdiction required)
- Margoles v. Johns, 483 F.2d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (projecting presence and location of acts for long-arm)
- Kopff v. Battaglia, 425 F. Supp.2d 76 (D.D.C. 2006) (requires more than injury to connect to DC for long-arm)
- Crane v. N.Y. Zoological Soc’y, 894 F.2d 454 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (resolving jurisdictional fact disputes in DC Circuit)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) (reputation injury not a protected liberty interest under Fifth Amendment)
- Lightfoot v. Dist. of Columbia, 273 F.R.D. 314 (D.D.C. 2011) (procedural due process analysis standards)
- Propert v. Dist. of Columbia, 948 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (due process requirements for government action)