Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01405/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01405-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Snyder
Plaintiff
Patricia Snyder
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Patricia Snyder, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-01405-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On March 27, 2013, the United States of America (“Defendant” or “the 

Government”) filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

Doc. 19. Plaintiff Patricia Snyder filed a response on April 8, 2013 (Doc. 21), and the 

Government filed a reply on April 17, 2013 (Doc. 23). No party sought oral argument. 

For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Government’s motion to dismiss. 

I. Background. 

 John Snyder, Plaintiff’s husband, died on July 27, 2010 in his spa. Doc. 1 ¶ 14. 

The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to accidental 

drowning. Id. Prior to his death, Mr. Snyder had received both outpatient and inpatient 

medical treatment at the Phoenix Veterans Administration Health Care System (VA). 

Plaintiff alleges that her husband was the victim of medical malpractice during his 

treatment and that the treatment led to his death. She now brings this action against the 

United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (“FTCA”), for 

medical malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

Case 2:12-cv-01405-DGC Document 26 Filed 05/02/13 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

II. Legal Standard. 

 When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim Rule 12(b)(6), the wellpled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Legal 

conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth, 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009), and they are insufficient to defeat a motion 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim, In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th 

Cir. 2010). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the complaint must plead “enough facts 

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007). 

III. Analysis. 

 1. Negligence. 

 The liability of the United States under the FTCA is determined in accordance 

with the law of the state where the allegedly negligent act occurred. Miller v. United 

States, 945 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1991). In Arizona, a negligence claim requires a 

Plaintiff to prove “(1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of 

care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the 

defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” Gipson v. Kasey, 

150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007). 

 The complaint in this case mentions many doctors who treated Mr. Snyder and 

generally asserts that they engaged in various forms of misconduct. The Court cannot 

find, however, that any claim against any individual adequately pleads all four of the 

required elements under Arizona law. Plaintiff has not pled the relevant standard of care, 

nor has she pled specific facts as to how any of the individual doctors breached that 

standard. 

 Furthermore, even if Plaintiff had articulated a negligence claim against an 

individual doctor, she has not shown how any of the alleged negligence during treatment 

caused Mr. Snyder’s death. A defendant’s acts are the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s 

Case 2:12-cv-01405-DGC Document 26 Filed 05/02/13 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

injury only if they are a substantial factor in bringing about the harm and the injury would 

not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent conduct. Barret v. Harris, 86 P.3d 

954, 961 (Ariz. App. 2004). Here, the medical examiner determined that Mr. Snyder died 

of accidental drowning. The complaint does not show how misdiagnosis or malpractice 

at the hospital could have led to that result. The Court will dismiss the negligence claim 

for failure to state a claim. 

2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

 In Arizona, negligent infliction of emotional distress requires that a plaintiff: 

“(1) witness an injury to a closely related person, (2) suffer mental anguish manifested as 

a physical injury, and (3) be within the zone of danger so as to be subject to an 

unreasonable risk of bodily harm created by the defendant.” Pierce v. Casas Adobes 

Baptist Church, 782 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ariz. 1989) (citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff claims that she suffered emotional distress as a result of watching her 

husband experience health problems that were exacerbated by the alleged negligence. 

Accepting her claims as true, Plaintiff has not pled that she was within a “zone of danger 

so as to be subject to an unreasonable risk of bodily harm created by the defendant.” Id. 

Plaintiff has pled no facts that demonstrate that her own safety was ever in question. 

Plaintiff was not a patient subject to the allegedly negligent medical care. Accordingly 

the Court will dismiss this claim with prejudice. 

IV. Leave to amend. 

The Court will dismiss the negligence claim with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff 

choose to amend her complaint, she should identify which specific doctors breached the 

duty of care, the specific acts of each doctor that breached the duty, and how each alleged 

breach proximately caused Mr. Snyder’s death. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01405-DGC Document 26 Filed 05/02/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) is granted. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before May 22, 2013. 

 Dated this 2nd day of May, 2013. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01405-DGC Document 26 Filed 05/02/13 Page 4 of 4