Estate of Paul F. Treworgy v. Commissioner, Department of Health and Human Services, 169 A.3d 416

Background

Paul Treworgy executed an advance healthcare directive naming his wife Jane (or son John) as decisionmaker and expressing wishes to avoid opiates unless in extreme pain and to be kept alive within accepted standards.
In Sept. 2011 the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) allegedly obtained temporary guardianship, placed Paul in a nursing home, administered opiates, stopped cancer treatment, and denied family access to records; Paul died Oct. 29, 2011.
The Treworgys sued in federal court (June 2014), alleging § 1983 claims, Maine constitutional claims, and violations of Maine’s Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act; the federal court dismissed claims against the Commissioner and county defendants with prejudice and dismissed claims against employee Ingraham without prejudice for lack of timely service.
The Treworgys then sued in Maine Superior Court (Feb. 2016) the Commissioner (official capacity) and employees Ingraham and Perkins (purportedly individual capacities), asserting fiduciary, supervisory, civil-rights, and health-care-act claims based on the same facts.
Defendants moved to dismiss on res judicata/claim preclusion grounds; the Superior Court held the prior federal judgment precluded the new claims against the Commissioner and, because the employees’ actions were alleged in their official-state roles, also precluded claims against Ingraham and Perkins.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: finality and identicality of claims were satisfied, and the employees were sufficiently closely related to the Commissioner (i.e., acting as arms of the State) to trigger claim preclusion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal-court judgment bars the state-court claims (claim preclusion)	The federal judgment against the Commissioner in official capacity does not preclude later individual-capacity suits against employees Ingraham and Perkins	The federal judgment is a final adjudication on the merits and, because employees acted as state actors, the later suits are precluded	Court held claim preclusion applies; prior federal judgment bars the state claims
Whether employees sued individually are in privity/closely related to the Commissioner for preclusion purposes	Ingraham and Perkins (as individuals) are not in privity with the State and thus not bound by an official-capacity judgment	Employees are sufficiently closely related because alleged acts were undertaken in their official roles as public guardians	Court held employees were sufficiently closely related to the Commissioner; preclusion applies
Whether dismissal of claims against an employee without prejudice in federal court prevents later preclusion	Treworgys argued dismissal without prejudice for lack of service shows subsequent suit should be allowed	Defendants argued overall final judgment in favor of Commissioner and identity of claims justify preclusion of related claims against employees	Court rejected plaintiff’s view; dismissal of employee without prejudice in federal case did not preclude application of claim preclusion here
Whether the court should reach substantive merits after finding preclusion	Treworgys sought adjudication on substantive statutory and constitutional claims	Defendants asserted res judicata ends inquiry; merits not reached	Court declined to reach merits because res judicata disposes of the case

Key Cases Cited

Hatch v. Trail King Indus., 699 F.3d 38 (1st Cir.) (sets three elements of claim preclusion under federal law)
Airframe Sys. v. Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.) (claim preclusion applies when new defendant is closely related to an original defendant)
Silva v. City of New Bedford, 660 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.) (police officers and city sufficiently closely related for claim preclusion)
Brown v. Osier, 628 A.2d 125 (Me.) (state defendant judgment can preclude later suits against employees acting in official capacities)
AVX Corp. v. Cabot Corp., 424 F.3d 28 (1st Cir.) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is ordinarily a dismissal on the merits)