Lewis v. Drouillard
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21942
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are ten UPS employees alleging injuries and a RICO scheme involving UPS, Liberty Mutual, and Dr. Drouillard.
- Plaintiffs allege UPS and Liberty Mutual directed fraudulent independent medical examinations and reports to deny workers' compensation benefits.
- Plaintiffs claim mail/wire fraud by mailing IMEs and notices of dispute in furtherance of the scheme.
- Plaintiffs assert the actions formed an enterprise and joint decisions to deny/terminate benefits, supported by Liberty and UPS.
- Plaintiffs seek treble damages, costs, attorney fees, injunctive relief, and class certification.
- The court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of RICO standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RICO standing require injury to business or property? | Plaintiffs allege an implied property right in WDCA benefits. | Injuries described are personal, not injuries to business or property. | No standing; injuries are personal, not cognizable under RICO. |
| Are pecuniary losses from personal injuries recoverable under RICO as property injury? | Plaintiffs frame damages as property losses. | RICO does not permit recovery for pecuniary losses tied to personal injuries. | Pecuniary losses from personal injuries are excluded; no RICO standing. |
| If property interest could exist, does Michigan law provide it prior to final determination? | WDCA rights create a property interest in benefits. | No property interest until final WDCA determination. | No property interest before final administrative determination; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drake v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 782 F.2d 638 (6th Cir.1986) (RICO standing excludes personal injuries)
- Evans v. Chicago, 434 F.3d 916 (7th Cir.2006) (personal injuries and related losses not RICO injury)
- Doe v. Roe, 958 F.2d 763 (7th Cir.1992) (losses tied to personal injury not cognizable under RICO)
- Grogan v. Platt, 835 F.2d 844 (11th Cir.1988) (pecuniary injuries linked to personal injury not RICO injury)
- Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 136 Mich.App. 251 (Mich.App.1984) (Michigan WDCA rights and final determination requirements)
- Brown v. Ajax Paving Indus., Inc., 773 F. Supp. 2d 727 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (RICO standing concerns for workers' compensation injuries)
- Fisher v. Halliburton, No. 05-1731, 06-1971, 06-1168 (S.D.Tex. 2009) (standing analysis in RICO context)