493 F. App'x 390
4th Cir.2012Background
- Dickerson appeals district court rulings dismissing his FAC against TLC Providers in a RICO action seeking medical-record relief.
- Plaintiff alleges a multi-year fraudulent scheme to conceal malpractice and conceal/convert medical records.
- RICO accrual is governed by a four-year statute with discovery rule; FAC dates alleged 1999–2005.
- District court held injuries allegedly arising from conversion were not clearly time-barred but ultimately dismissed for lack of cognizable injury to business or property.
- Court addresses conversion under South Carolina law and HIPAA-related relief, then affirms dismissal of declaratory and injunctive claims.
- Related arguments about LTC fees not pleaded as property injury, and district court’s intangible-property discussion remains, with assumption without deciding on intangibles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Dickerson's RICO claim time-barred? | Dickerson argues discovery rule tolls accrual; limitations not clear from FAC. | Providers contend accrual by May 2005 based on alleged conversions. | Limitations not clearly present on face of FAC; equitable tolling not decideable here. |
| Does FAC plead cognizable injury to business or property under RICO? | Injuries to property from conversion and fees qualify as business/property injury. | Injuries alleged are personal or statutory/privacy-based, not property loss. | FAC fails to plead cognizable business/property injury. |
| Is a conversion claim for medical records cognizable under South Carolina law? | Dickerson has intangible interest in medical information; conversion should lie. | Under SC law, physicians own medical records; patient intangibles do not support conversion. | Conversion claim for medical records not cognizable. |
| Are declaratory and injunctive relief claims proper given lack of RICO success? | Relief seeks HIPAA/records-disclosure remedies. | Relief tethered to unresolved RICO or HIPAA theories. | Declaratory relief improper; injunctive relief unavailable absent a viable RICO claim. |
| Did the district court properly address LTC-fee allegations and intangible rights? | LTC contracts and fees show property injury supporting RICO. | Allegations do not plead property injury under RICO. |
Key Cases Cited
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1987) (four-year RICO limitations; discovery rule applies)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (U.S. 2000) (discovery-of-injury accrual rule for RICO)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985) (essential elements of a RICO claim)
- Bast v. Cohen, Dunn & Sinclair, P.C., 59 F.3d 492 (4th Cir. 1995) (injury to business/property requirement under RICO)
- Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 582 S.E.2d 432 (S.C. App. 2003) (SC law on conversion of tangible vs intangible property)
- Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690 (S.C. App. 1984) (patients’ rights to information in medical files; physician ownership of records)
- Linog v. Yampolsky, 376 S.C. 182, 656 S.E.2d 355 (S.C. 2008) (partial overruling on other grounds; intangible interests in records)