Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04593/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04593-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 See Wade v. Chao, No. 06-cv-5431-MJJ (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 5, 2006); Wade v.

Veterans Affairs N. Cal. Healthcare Sys., No. 06-cv-4905-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 15, 2006);

Wade v. Chao, No. 06-cv-4829-MJJ (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 10, 2006); Wade v. United States, No.

06-cv-4828-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 10, 2006); Wade v. Am. Fed. of Gov’t Employees, No.

06-cv-4751-MEJ (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 7, 2006); Wade v. United States, No. 06-cv-4726-MJJ

(N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 4, 2006); Wade v. Chao, No. 06-cv-4725-MJJ (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 4,

2006); Wade v. United States, No. 06-cv-4704-WHA (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 3, 2006); Wade v.

United States, No. 06-cv-4593-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed July 28, 2006); Wade v. Lockyer, No. 06-

cv-4431-MHP (N.D. Cal. filed July 20, 2006); Wade v. Chao, No. 06-cv-5431-MJJ (N.D. Cal.

filed Sept. 5, 2006); Wade v. Veterans Affairs N. Cal. Healthcare Sys., No. 06-cv-2925-CRB

(N.D. Cal. filed May 1, 2006); Wade v. Chao, No. 06-cv-2610-MJJ (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 18,

2006); Wade v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 06-cv-2596-SBA (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 17, 2006); Wade

v. Chao, No. 06-cv-2592-MJJ (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 17, 2006); Wade v. United States, No. 06-cv2346-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 4, 2006); Wade v. Chao, No. 06-cv-2209-MJJ (N.D. Cal. filed

Mar. 28, 2006); Wade v. Veterans Affairs N. Cal. Healthcare Sys., No. 06-cv-1963-CRB (N.D.

Cal. filed Mar. 15, 2006); Wade v. Chao, No. 06-cv-0710-MJJ (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 1, 2006);

Wade v. Chao, No. 06-cv-0693-MJJ (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 31, 2006); Wade v. Gonzales, No. 06-

cv-0399-PJH (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 20, 2006); Wade v. Veterans Affairs N. Cal. Healthcare Sys., No. 05-cv-5361-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 27, 2005); Wade v. Chao, No. 05-cv-5087-MJJ

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E.K. WADE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-04593 CRB

ORDER

Since December of 2005, E.K. Wade has filed twenty-four lawsuits in the Northern

District of California.1

 Eight of these lawsuits relate to problems he has experienced at

Case 3:06-cv-04593-CRB Document 57 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 9, 2005); Wade v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 05-cv-5086-SBA (N.D. Cal. filed

Dec. 9, 2005); Wade v. Veterans Affairs N. Cal. Healthcare Sys., No. 05-cv-4960-CRB (N.D.

Cal. filed Dec. 1, 2005).

2

Veterans Administration hospitals in Martinez and Walnut Creek, California. These eight

lawsuits variously relate to three discrete episodes: (1) an incident in May of 2005 when

Wade received a prescription for a drug called Prednisone that apparently caused him

internal bleeding; (2) an incident in December of 2005 when the VA hospital in Walnut

Creek refused to provide him with mental health care services, ostensibly because Wade was

covered under both a VA health care plan and a private health care plan; or (3) another

incident in December of 2005 when the VA hospital in Walnut Creek refused to fill a

prescription for Prednisone for him. These eight “hospital cases” were related for collective

consideration by this Court.

This Court previously dismissed three of the cases (Case Nos. 05-4960, 05-5361, and

06-1963) on the ground that Wade had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies

available to him through the Veterans Administration. The Court previously dismissed three

different cases (Case Nos. 06-2925, 06-4828, and 06-4905) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. In those cases, the Court found that the federal government was immune from

Wade’s attempt to recover damages based on alleged violations of federal law. The Court

noted that the only basis for a suit seeking damages against the government was the Federal

Tort Claims Act, and that Wade had failed to identify any state-law basis for his claims. 

Now pending before the Court are three motions relating to Case No. 06-4593, which

asserts a claim for “negligent infliction of emotional distress.” The first is Defendant’s

motion to dismiss. The second is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The third is

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

In the motion to dismiss, the government argues that the case should be dismissed

because, once again, Plaintiff attempts to invoke federal regulations and statutes in support of

his claim for damages against the federal government. Plaintiff’s complaint, however, does

not rest on a federal claim. Rather, it rests on a state law tort claim for negligent infliction of

Case 3:06-cv-04593-CRB Document 57 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

emotional distress. The only mention of federal regulations or statutes appears in Plaintiff’s

brief in opposition to the government’s motion for summary judgment. The complaint,

however, does not mention federal law and does not purport to invoke it in support of a cause

of action. In the Court’s view, then, Plaintiff’s references to federal law in his brief do not

transform Plaintiff’s tort claim under California law into a federal claim. Therefore, the

Court finds that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the California tort claim, consistent with the

federal government’s waiver of immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §

2674. Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

As to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court has reviewed the

evidence and declarations submitted by the parties. The real parties in interest in this action

are Dr. Robert Douglas, who refused to provide Plaintiff with mental health counseling on or

about December 15, 2005, and Dr. David Chapman, who refused to fill Plaintiff’s

prescription for Prednisone on or about December 20, 2005. Plaintiff claims that these

actions by Dr. Douglas and Chapman caused him great emotional distress, for which he

entitled to compensation.

A claim for “negligent infliction of emotional distress” is not an independent tort, but

rather a species of a claim for negligence, i.e. for the breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff

that results in his suffering emotional distress. Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1064,

1072 (1992). Thus, to prevail on his claim for “negligent infliction of emotional distress,” as

with any other claim for negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate the “traditional elements of

duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.” Id. (quoting Marlene F. v. Affiliated

Psychiatric Med. Clinic, Inc., 48 Cal.3d 583, 588 (1989)). Under California law, in the

context of a claim against medical professionals, a claim for negligence must be established

through the use of expert testimony that a doctor or physician has breached the applicable

standard of care. Sinz v. Owens, 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 (1949) (“[T]he standard of care against

which the acts of a physician are to be measured is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge

of experts; it presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by their

testimony.” (emphasis added)).

Case 3:06-cv-04593-CRB Document 57 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Here the government has come forward with evidence that neither Dr. Douglas nor

Dr. Chapman breached their duty of care to Plaintiff. As to Dr. Douglas, his decision to deny

mental health counseling was due to the fact that concurrent treatment would risk subjecting

Plaintiff to conflicting or inconsistent treatment regimes. Indeed, according to the

government’s evidence, it would potentially have been a breach of care to provide such

treatment. As to Dr. Chapman, his decision to refuse Plaintiff’s prescription for Prednisone

was due to the fact that Plaintiff had recently experienced internal bleeding as a result of that

drug. Because he was not the prescribing doctor, Dr. Chapman did not feel comfortable

filling the prescription under those circumstances. The government’s evidence is that such a

decision was well within Dr. Chapman’s discretion, and not a violation of any duty owed to

Plaintiff. The government has thus set forth evidence that, if uncontradicted, would entitle it

to a directed verdict on an essential element of Plaintiff’s negligence claim. Nissan Fire &

Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In opposition, Plaintiff has provided no evidence that Dr. Douglas or Dr. Chapman

breached a standard of care. Indeed, even after the government alerted Plaintiff to the fact

that expert testimony was required to make such a showing, and after the Court granted leave

for Plaintiff to make additional submissions regarding the standard of care, Plaintiff has

produced only a letter from his physician indicating that he subsequently sought mental

health treatment after his encounters with Dr. Douglas and Dr. Chapman. Such evidence

may well be relevant to the damages that Plaintiff may have suffered as a result of the

incident, but it does not establish that any duty of care was breached. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to create a genuine dispute as to

whether such a breach of care occurred. For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff recently filed two motions in this case that would

have dramatically altered the course of these proceedings. The first motion was for leave to

amend the complaint; in this motion, Plaintiff sought to substitute federal claims for the

negligence claim he originally advanced. The Court denied leave, noting that such federal

Case 3:06-cv-04593-CRB Document 57 Filed 05/11/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2006\4593\order3.wpd 5

causes of action could not be pursued due to the government’s immunity from damages

claims, as the Court had previously held in three other related cases. Then, a week before the

hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint without prejudice. That motion is hereby DENIED. Having filed eight lawsuits

related to the same three underlying incidents, having had three of those actions dismissed

already on jurisdictional grounds, and having placed the burden on the government to defend

itself in this action against a particular claim of negligence, the Court finds it inappropriate to

dismiss the action without prejudice. The law rightfully grants an enormous amount of

leeway to pro se plaintiffs, especially when they are not well versed in the intricacies of

sovereign immunity or pleading practice. What it does not permit is for a plaintiff to refile

case after case whenever an obstacle arises to a particular claim. A litigation strategy of trialand-error is unfair to the defendant, who is entitled to a final adjudication of the controversy,

however genuine a plaintiff’s grievance may be.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice is

DENIED; Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED; Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED; and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04593-CRB Document 57 Filed 05/11/07 Page 5 of 5