McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier
752 F.3d 224
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- McGugan, a private patient, was involuntarily hospitalized and forcibly medicated at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (JHMC) after being sedated on a flight and transported to JHMC.
- Doctors Aldana-Bernier and Hovanesian certified McGugan for confinement under NY Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 based on alleged danger to self/others; Dr. Mahmudur ordered additional forced medication; Abioye administered sedatives.
- A prior disturbance on a flight and an ex-partner's statements were used as evidence suggesting dangerousness; staff believed McGugan suffering from delusions and unstable behavior.
- OMH regulates civil commitment in NY; catchment-area hospitals determine need for inpatient care, with private hospitals sometimes transferring patients needing long-term care to state facilities.
- McGugan alleged the decision to hospitalize and treat was influenced by stereotypes about mental illness and questioned the adequacy of risk assessments.
- District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of § 1983 state action and lack of actionable discrimination under § 504; declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does private hospital action amount to state action for § 1983? | McGugan relies on Rosenberg and argues state action exists via regulatory scheme and nexus. | McGugan cannot show compulsion, close nexus, or public-function; Rosenberg remains controlling. | No state action; § 1983 claim failure. |
| Does the conduct violate § 504 by discriminatory medical decision-making? | Discrimination occurred by relying on stereotypes about mental illness in hospitalization decision. | Discretionary medical decisions based on relevant medical standards are not discriminatory under § 504. | No actionable discrimination under § 504; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Rosenberg, 166 F.3d 507 (2d Cir.1999) (private hospital not state action in involuntary commitment)
- Rosenberg, 996 F. Supp. 343 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (district court analysis of state action in commitment scheme)
- Univ. Hosp., 729 F.2d 144 (2d Cir.1984) (§504 discrimination prohibits when handicap unrelated to services)
- Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.2006) (discrimination when competence-based refusal disregards disability-related factors)
- Bolmer v. Oliveira, 594 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.2010) (discrimination in medical treatment under ADA/§504 based on improper considerations)
- Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.2012) (state action in pet euthanasia context; relevance to public function/state action)
- Kia P. v. McIntyre, 235 F.3d 749 (2d Cir.2000) (private hospital engaged in state action when embedded in reporting/enforcement machinery)