United States District Court, D. Maryland
XINIS United States District Judge
and ready for resolution are separate motions to dismiss
filed by Defendants Carol Attia (“Ms. Attia”),
Anjana Dhar, M.D. (“Dr. Dhar”), and Luc Oke, M.D.
(“Dr. Oke”). ECF Nos. 12, 13, 18. The relevant
issues have been fully briefed and the court now rules
pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 because no hearing is necessary.
This court will GRANT the motions to dismiss as to all
facts outlined here are taken from the Complaint, liberally
construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff Joseph
2013, Plaintiff began seeking medical treatment for an
undisclosed medical condition. ECF No. 1 at 5-6, 56-57; ECF
No. 1-9 at 2. To assist in the diagnosis, Plaintiff’s
treating physician ordered a magnetic resonance imaging
procedure (“MRI”) for Plaintiff from Capital
Imaging, LLC (“Capital Imaging”) in Bethesda,
Maryland. Id. at 56. An MRI test requires
intravenously injecting contrast into the patient’s arm
to help facilitate a clear image. While the allegations in the
complaint are less than a model of clarity, Plaintiff appears
to claim that the MRI technician had difficulty finding a
vein in which to inject the substance and, as a result,
accidently injured him. Id. Plaintiff also alleges
that the technician injected Plaintiff with an unusually
large volume of the substance, causing him to lose
consciousness. While he was unconscious, Plaintiff alleges
that a technician at Capital Imaging sexually assaulted him.
ECF No. 1 at 5-6, 56-57. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that
his health became progressively worse over the next several
months because of the inadequate treatment received.
Id. at 14.
later in 2014, Plaintiff became eligible for Medicaid
(id. at 14), and enrolled in MedStar Family Choice;
the Medicaid Managed Care Organization (MCO) of MedStar
Health. Id. at 23. MedStar referred Plaintiff to
four private physicians, doctors Anthony Macarthy, Anjana
Dhar, Asmir Syed, and Luc Oke (collectively, the
“Defendant doctors”) for medical care.
MedStar Family Choice,
http://www.medstarfamilychoice.com/ (last visited
July 19, 2016) (identifying defendant doctors as private
physicians in the Medstar MCO). The remaining defendant,
Carol Attia, currently serves as the Assistant Vice President
of Care Management for MedStar Family Choice Maryland.
October 15, 2014, Plaintiff visited Dr. Dhar’s office
in Silver Spring, Maryland, to secure written proof of his
workplace disability for potential employers so that he could
receive necessary accommodations. ECF No. 1 at 21-22, 28.
Plaintiff alleges that during this visit, Dr. Dhar performed
a “diagnostic test” on Plaintiff “that
revealed that one of the two arteries in the left arm, the
ulnar artery [sic] is injured.” Id. at 28, 31.
The damaged artery was allegedly caused by the botched MRI
test. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Dhar must have realized
that Plaintiff had been sexually assaulted during the MRI
because there is no other reason why the ulnar artery would
be injured. Id. at 28-29. Plaintiff alleges that
instead of reporting the sexual assault, Dr. Dhar blamed
Plaintiff for the incident because he did not take steps to
prevent the attack. ECF No. 1 at 29. Plaintiff also alleges
that Dr. Dhar tried to benefit from Plaintiff’s assault
by conspiring to conceal evidence that the assault occurred
or “sell the Plaintiffs rights”-conduct that
Plaintiff calls “unjust enrichment.” ECF No. 1 at
7-8, 29. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Dr.
Dhar failed to give Plaintiff a complete physical
examination, failed to properly diagnose Plaintiff with
certain medical conditions, and failed to keep a proper
record of Plaintiff’s visit. ECF No. 1 at 31-33. Dr.
Dhar was unable to complete the requested disability form
because Dr. Dhar lacked adequate medical information at that
time. ECF No. 1 at 42.
was the cardiologist assigned to Plaintiff through MedStar
Family Choice. ECF No. 1 at 22. During his visit with Dr.
Oke, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Oke also realized Plaintiff
had been sexually assaulted when he learned that Plaintiff
was injected in an artery during a previous MRI test. ECF No.
1 at 30. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Oke like Dr. Dhar
concealed his findings for personal gain rather than report
the assault. ECF No. 1 at 30. Plaintiff also accuses Dr. Oke
of misdiagnosing Plaintiff with certain medical conditions,
improperly administering and documenting certain cardiology
stress tests, altering Plaintiff’s medical records, and
failing to provide Plaintiff with his medical records upon
request. ECF No. 1 at 33-35.
Drs. Macarthy and Syed are accused of engaging in similar
conduct. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Macarthy failed to
provide him adequate medical care and refused to treat
Plaintiff when he called to schedule an appointment. ECF No.
1 at 42-43. Dr. Syed is accused of failing to provide
Plaintiff with adequate medical care and failing to properly
document Plaintiff’s medical conditions. ECF No. 1 at
primary complaint against Ms. Attia is that she
“devise[d] a scheme to suppress”
Plaintiff’s complaints against the Defendant doctors.
ECF No. 1 at 24. He also alleges that Ms. Attia improperly
took control of Plaintiff’s medical care after he filed
complaints about the treatment he received from Drs. Dhar,
Oke, Macarthy, and Syed; refused to allow MedStar to provide
Plaintiff with adequate medical care; and violated
Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by trying to force
Plaintiff to delete a YouTube video Plaintiff recorded which
Plaintiff claims to be proof of MedStar’s misconduct.
ECF No. 1 at 25, 26, 43-45. Plaintiff alleges that all of
this was done to increase MedStar’s profits at the
expense of Plaintiff’s well-being. ECF No. 1 at 27, 31.
August 21, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed
a thirty-eight count complaint which set out an array of
claims, including violations of Plaintiff’s civil
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts 1, 10, 19,
28, 33), tortious interference with a contract in both
Maryland and the District of Columbia (Counts 2, 3, 11, 12,
20, 21, 29, 34), fraud in both Maryland and the District of
Columbia (Counts 4, 5, 13, 14, 23, 24, 30, 35), conspiracy in
both Maryland and the District of Columbia (Counts 6, 7, 15,
16, 26, 31, 36), and intentional infliction of emotional
distress in both Maryland and the District of Columbia
(Counts 8, 9, 17, 18, 27, 32, 36). Id. at 60-69.
Plaintiff also alleges Dr. Oke engaged in conversion (Count
37) and unjust enrichment (Count 38). Id. at 70. The
sole basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction
arises from Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C § 1983 and the United States Constitution.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1343. See also Chapman v.
Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 607 (1979).
The Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ECF No. 1 at 1.
January 28, 2016 Dr. Oke filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the
alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement. ECF No. 12.
On January 29, 2016, Dr. Dhar filed a Motion to Dismiss, ECF
No. 13, and Ms. Attia filed her Motion to Dismiss on February
9, 2016. ECF No. 18. For the reasons that follow, all three
motions to dismiss will be GRANTED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test
the sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of
Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint
need only satisfy the standard of Rule 8(a), which requires a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,
’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to
relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 n.3 (2007). That showing must consist of more than
“a formulaic recitation of ...