Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Cariten Healthcare

March 11, 2008

OLAIN JONES, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CARITEN HEALTHCARE, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: R. Allan Edgar United States District Judge

Edgar / Carter

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Olain Jones attempts to bring this action pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (codified primarily in Titles 18, 26 and 42 of the United States Code) and certain unidentified "civil rights." He claims that Defendants Cariten Healthcare ("Cariten") and The Psychology Center (the "Center") violated his medical privacy rights. Defendants Cariten and the Center move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and has determined that the Defendants' motion will be GRANTED.

I. Background

Plaintiff Olain Jones filed his complaint pro se on January 11, 2008. His short, plain statement of the grounds for his action is: "I was terminated from my job when my medical privacy rights were violated due to both Rick Taylor of Cariten and John Odom of The Psychology Center contacted [sic] my employer." Court Doc. No. 3, Complaint.

The factual circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's claims are murky at best. Plaintiff's own statement describing the factual scenario is as follows:

I applied for employee assistance due to retaliation discrimination [levied] against me by the local manager of Lawler-Wood, LLC. I asked that Rick Taylor and Cariten not talk with company until I had received some mental health treatments through the assistance program. Joe Engle stated that he was going to allow me to remain with the company until he talked to Rick Taylor. I also asked John Odom not to make contact with the company until I had been helped. He asked who referred me and I stated that it was Rick Taylor. He left the room for a moment. When he returned he started speaking differently than he did before I mentioned Mr. Taylor's name. He contacted the company against my will and without a privacy release. He assumed that because I was black I was using crack and had me tested. He called my supervisor and set up a drug test that I wasn't even aware that I was going to take. I tested negative and have never used crack. Thats [sic] what he though [sic] and he was wrong and it cost me.

Complaint

Defendants submit evidence in the record demonstrating that both Cariten and the Center are incorporated in the State of Tennessee. Plaintiff's Complaint also indicates that he is a resident of Tennessee. See Complaint. Defendants assert that Plaintiff's claims revolve around their alleged contacts with his former employer, Lawler-Wood, LLC. Plaintiff claims that Defendants' contacts with Lawler-Wood violated his medical privacy rights and his civil rights.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). [Court Doc. No. 4]. In response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff filed a response to the motion [Court Doc. No. 7], as well as a motion to amend his complaint, proposing to add unidentified "civil rights" violations [Court Doc. No. 6]. Defendants have filed their reply brief pertaining to their motion to dismiss. [Court Doc. No. 8]. Plaintiff has further filed an additional response, as well as a motion for admittance and use of a polygraph test. [Court Doc. Nos. 11, 12]. The motion to dismiss is now ripe for this court's review.

II. Standard of Review

Defendants bring a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) provides in relevant part:

Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.