Estate of Booker v. Greater Philadelphia Health Action, Inc.
10 F. Supp. 3d 656
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- GPHA and its employees may be entitled to FTCA coverage if deemed Public Health Service employees for purposes of medical malpractice claims.
- HHS initially deemed GPHA and two GPHA doctors to be PHS employees for the case, triggering FTCA coverage if the services fall within scope.
- Plaintiff Brandi Booker sued GPHA and doctors for negligence related to isoniazid prescription following a positive TB test during Employee Health Program activities.
- HHS later denied coverage for certain services as outside grant-activity scope, but subsequently issued favorable deeming determinations for 2007–2010 and requested defense by the United States.
- GPHA removed the state court action to federal court under § 233(z)(2) after HHS’s favorable determinations, arguing timeliness and scope issues.
- The Government moved to remand, arguing untimeliness and that Employee Health Program services were outside FTCA coverage; GPHA opposed remand on timeliness and scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal under § 233(z)(2). | GPHA removal timely under § 233(z)(2). | Removal untimely under 30-day rule of § 1446(b). | Removal timely; § 233(z)(2) not governed by 30-day limit. |
| Whether FTCA coverage extends to the Employee Health Program services. | Ms. Booker was GPHA’s patient for PPD-related services under the Employee Health Program. | Employee Health Program services to employees are outside patient-services scope requiring separate approval. | Ms. Booker was a GPHA patient for PPD-related services; FTCA coverage applies. |
| Deference to HHS deeming determinations on coverage for this case. | HHS deeming determinations apply to the case as final and binding. | HHS determinations are not dispositive; merits must be considered for scope. | HHS deeming determinations apply and are binding for purposes of FTCA coverage here. |
| Scope of services contemplated by § 233(g)(1)(B) for deemed status. | Deeming applies to services provided to all patients, including Ms. Booker for PPD-related care. | Non-patient services or employee-only programs may require separate approval to be within FTCA coverage. | PPD-related services provided to Booker fall within the deemed scope; FTCA coverage extends. |
| Whether the Secretary’s deeming determination covers the acts/omissions at issue. | Secretary’s prior deemings cover the acts/omissions described in the complaint. | Coverage depends on the Secretary’s determination for the specific acts; the January 10, 2013 letter is not itself a deeming. | Secretary’s prior deemings apply; the acts are covered under FTCA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hui v. Castaneda, 559 F.3d 799 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (PHSA immunity for acts within scope of employment)
- Celestine v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Ctr., 403 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2005) (certification/removal under FTCA for deemed entities)
- El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health, & Human Servs., 396 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (discussed timeliness/removal considerations under § 233(i)(2))
- Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2003) (removal under § 233(i)(2) not limited to 30 days)
- El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 396 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (discussed interplay of deeming determinations and removal)
- Haag v. Webster, 434 F.Supp.2d 732 (W.D. Mo. 2006) (timing provisions in contexts of silent removal statutes)
- Mtech Corp. v. FDIC, 729 F.Supp.1134 (N.D. Tex. 1990) (removal timing considerations in silent statutes)