Jason v. Group Health Cooperative, 3:11-cv-05697

Ihor C. Jason sues Group Health Cooperative, Dr. Rebecca Townsend, and Dr. Roger Chamusco in the Western District of Washington (No. CV11-5697 RBL).
Jason sought emergency treatment at St. Joseph’s Medical Center on February 8 and February 10, 2011, believing he had cardiac arrest.
He alleges Townsend and Chamusco refused to administer a CT scan that had been ordered by another physician and requested by his homecare nurse.
Jason filed a grievance with Group Health on March 15, 2011 and, dissatisfied with the response, filed this action asserting negligence, fraud, wrongful denial of medical treatment, and false imprisonment.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the court analyzes EMTALA, criminal health care fraud liability, and state-law claims for jurisdictional basis.
The court concludes the federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction because no federal question or complete diversity is established, and the claims are governed by state law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EMTALA creates federal question jurisdiction.	Jason contends EMTALA violations give rise to federal question.	Defendants argue EMTALA does not provide a general federal malpractice standard or private cause of action.	EMTALA does not create federal question jurisdiction here.
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1347 health care fraud confers federal jurisdiction or a private right of action.	Jason claims Medicare fraud scheme implicates federal law.	Health care fraud statute is criminal with no private action and lacks standing for private suits.	Statute does not provide private federal jurisdiction or standing.
Whether alleged Medicare violations or ‘Medicare violations’ confer federal question jurisdiction.	Jason asserts federal question based on Medicare-related claims.	Claims are governed by state law; no federal provision identified as creating jurisdiction.	No federal question; state-law framework applies.
Whether complete diversity and amount in controversy support federal subject matter jurisdiction.	Jason attempts to plead federal jurisdiction via federal questions (as argued above).	No federal question or complete diversity shown; jurisdiction lacks basis.	Diversity and federal-question bases are not met; dismissal proper.

Baker v. Adventist Health, Inc., 260 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2001) (EMTALA not a general standard of care or federal medical malpractice action)
Jackson v. E. Bay Hosp., 246 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2001) (negligence in screening/diagnostic process not actionable under EMTALA)
Summers v. Baptist Med. Ctr. Arkadelphia, 91 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 1996) (negligence in screening/diagnostic process not EMTALA actionable)
Rzayeva v. United States, 492 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D. Conn. 2007) (private action not available under health care fraud statute)
Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) (standing considerations in jurisdictional challenges under Rule 12(b)(1))
In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S.D. Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden of proving federal jurisdiction rests with proponent)