Massie v. Lovelace Medical Group, 1:24-cv-01133

Plaintiff Michelle Massie, proceeding pro se, sued Lovelace Medical Group, Nurse Practitioner (N.P.) Regina Cappelle, and Dr. Ben Paruchuri for negligence, fraudulent billing, breach of professional duty, and failure to supervise.
Massie alleged N.P. Cappelle failed to provide timely medical documentation, resulting in the loss of her in-home care; and scheduled an unnecessary appointment for billing purposes. She alleged Dr. Paruchuri billed her insurance for a doctor's visit when she was only seen by a medical student. Further, she alleged Lovelace Medical Group failed to provide competent care and prevent fraudulent billing.
Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting a federal question based on references to federal Medicaid/Medicare laws, and sought dismissal of the complaint.
Multiple procedural motions followed, including Massie’s attempts to amend her complaint, several motions to strike, and a motion to compel arbitration. The Magistrate Judge reviewed all pending motions.
The core issue before the court was whether the complaint stated a viable federal claim upon which the court had jurisdiction, and, if not, whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff stated a federal claim for violation of Medicaid/Medicare rules	Defendants violated federal Medicaid/Medicare rules and regulations, entitling her to relief	Complaint fails to identify enforceable federal statute or right; no private cause of action exists	Federal claims dismissed with prejudice; no private right of action or §1983 claim stated
Whether untimely/amended complaints should remain	Sought leave to amend complaints and add a federal FCA/qui tam claim	Amended complaints untimely/unpermitted; FCA qui tam action can’t be brought pro se	Amended complaints stricken; leave to amend as to federal claims denied as futile
Whether court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims	State law claims related to same facts, urging retention or remand	State law claims should be remanded to state court if federal claims dismissed	Declined supplemental jurisdiction; recommended remand of state law claims to state court
Whether motions to strike improper filings should be granted	Requested court to excuse procedural errors due to pro se status	Argued plaintiff failed to follow local rules for surreplies, notices, etc.	Improperly filed documents stricken; pro se status does not excuse procedural noncompliance

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (standard for liberally construing pro se pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requirements for complaint to survive motion to dismiss)
Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (section 1983 requires violation of a federal right, not just law)
Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir. 1995) (section 1983 liability requires state action)
Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (dismissal with prejudice is appropriate if amendment would be futile)
Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 1998) (federal courts should usually remand state claims if all federal claims are dismissed)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend may be denied for futility, etc.)