Minny Frank v. Cascade Healthcare Community
688 F. App'x 461
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Minny Frank (pro se) sued hospital and staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Oregon tort law arising from psychiatric emergency services she received.
- District court granted summary judgment for all defendants; Frank appealed.
- Defendants include two individual clinicians (Namanny, Macdonnell) and multiple private hospital employees and the hospital (Cascade Healthcare Community, d/b/a St. Charles Medical Center, and named staff).
- Frank alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations against the individual clinicians and various state-law claims (negligence per se, medical negligence, NIED, IIED) against the hospital and staff.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered qualified immunity and whether private actors acted under color of state law, and whether genuine disputes of material fact existed on the state-law claims.
- The panel affirmed the district court: individual clinicians entitled to qualified immunity; private defendants not shown to be state actors; no triable issues on negligence per se, medical negligence/NIED, or IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for alleged Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment violations by Namanny and Macdonnell | Namanny and Macdonnell violated Frank's constitutional rights during psychiatric emergency care | Their conduct did not violate clearly established law; they are entitled to qualified immunity | Affirmed: qualified immunity applies; no clearly established violation shown |
| Whether private hospital and staff acted under color of state law (§ 1983) | Hospital and staff acted as state actors during psychiatric emergency care | They were private actors; Frank failed to show state action under relevant tests | Affirmed: no genuine dispute that defendants acted under color of state law |
| Negligence per se (Oregon) | Defendants breached statutes/rules applicable to medical care | No statutory or regulatory violation shown in the record | Affirmed: no triable issue on negligence per se |
| Medical negligence, NIED, and IIED (Oregon) | Defendants breached duties of care, causing physical/psychological harm and severe distress | No admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute that defendants breached applicable duties or intended/committed outrageous conduct | Affirmed: no genuine factual dispute on medical negligence or NIED; IIED not shown (no intent or extreme conduct) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Kisela, 841 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing qualified immunity on summary judgment)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity framework—clearly established rights inquiry)
- Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (tests for when private parties act under color of state law)
- Buoy v. Kim, 221 P.3d 771 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (elements of negligence per se under Oregon law)
- Abraham v. T. Henry Constr., Inc., 249 P.3d 534 (Or. 2011) (negligence per se as negligence with statutory standard of care)
- Creasey v. Hogan, 637 P.2d 114 (Or. 1981) (medical negligence standard under Oregon law)
- Simons v. Beard, 72 P.3d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 2003) (medical negligent infliction of emotional distress requirements)
- McGanty v. Staudenraus, 901 P.2d 841 (Or. 1995) (elements and high threshold for IIED under Oregon law)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (argument preservation rule for appeals)