IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHELLE L. DORCEY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-622

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge King

MOLLY CLEMENTS, et al., 

Defendants.

OPINION and ORDER

This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in which

plaintiff, a former trooper with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, alleges

that her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were denied

when she was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility. Count

3 of the original complaint asserts, inter alia, a claim of intentional

infliction of emotional distress against defendant Netcare Corporation

[“Netcare”], identified as a mental healthcare facility. Complaint, Doc.

No. 2, ¶ 5. Defendant Netcare moved to dismiss that claim for failure to

meet the pleading standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009),

Netcare’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Intentional Infliction

of Emotional Distress Claim, Doc. No. 21. This matter is now before the

Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion

for Leave to Amend, Doc. No. 24. Defendant Netcare opposes that motion,

Memo. in Opp., Doc. No. 26, and plaintiff has filed a reply in support

of the motion, Reply, Doc. No. 27.

Plaintiff’s motion is governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. That rule provides that “[t]he court should freely

Case: 2:11-cv-00622-GLF-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 11/15/11 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” F.R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

“[T]he thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the principle that cases ‘should

be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.’”

Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986) quoting Tefft

v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982). 

The grant or denial of a request to amend a complaint is left to the

broad discretion of the trial court. General Elec. Co. v. Sargent &

Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). In exercising its discretion,

the trial court may consider such factors as “undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failures to cure

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment [and] futility of

the amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

However, leave to amend is properly denied where the claim sought

to be asserted by the amendment would not survive a motion to dismiss.

Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 692 (6th Cir. 2006)(“A district court may

deny a plaintiff leave to amend his or her complaint. . . when the

proposed amendment would be futile.”) 

By her motion, plaintiff intends to address the pleading issues

raised by Netcare’s motion to dismiss.1 Netcare opposes that effort,

arguing that the proposed amended fails to allege facts sufficient to

state a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under Ohio

law, the necessary elements of a claim of intentional infliction of

emotional distress are the following: 

1) the defendant intended to cause emotional

distress or knew or should have known that

1

Plaintiff’s motion also proposes to add a negligence claim against

defendant Netcare. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 85 - 93. Defendant Netcare does not

oppose plaintiff’s proposed pleading in this regard.

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00622-GLF-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 11/15/11 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
actions taken would result in severe emotional

distress, (2) the defendant's conduct was so

extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all

bounds of decency and was such as to be

considered utterly intolerable in a civilized

community, (3) the defendant's actions

proximately caused plaintiff's psychic suffering,

and (4) the plaintiff suffered serious mental

anguish of a nature that no reasonable person

could be expected to endure. 

Callaway v. Nu-Cor Automotive Corp., 166 Ohio App. 3d 56, 64 (Ohio 10th

Dist. Ct. App. 2006). See also Yeager v. Local Union 20 Teamsters,

Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, 6 Ohio St. 3d 369

(1983).

As it relates to Netcare, the proposed Amended Complaint,

attached to plaintiff’s motion, alleges that this defendant “did

nothing to investigate the veracity of” misrepresentations made by

other defendants about plaintiff’s mental health, but “instead

immediately start[ed] involuntary commitment proceedings based

entirely on false, uncorroborated representations . . . .“ Id., ¶20. 

Netcare allegedly failed to conduct an interview sufficient to “assess

whether [plaintiff] was a danger to herself or others,” id., ¶23, and

its officer “prepared false documents.” id., ¶25. Moreover, the

proposed Amended Complaint alleges, the Netcare health officer who

involuntarily committed plaintiff lacked the proper training,

education and background to make an accurate assessment of plaintiff’s

potential threat to herself or others. Id., ¶¶ 30 - 32. As a result

of her involuntary commitment, plaintiff alleges, she “has suffered

emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, anxiety, and

depression . . . .” Id., ¶41. In this Court’s view, these allegations

are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. 

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00622-GLF-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 11/15/11 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Defendant Netcare contends that the proposed Amended Complaint

fails to allege facts sufficient to establish “an intent to cause

harm.” Memo. in Opp., p. 4. However, this Court is persuaded that the

facts alleged sufficiently meet the requisite mental element of

plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress –

i.e., that Netcare either “knew or should have known” that its actions

would result in severe emotional distress to plaintiff. See Callaway,

at 64. Furthermore, and Netcare’s argument to the contrary

notwithstanding, the Court concludes that the proposed Amended

Complaint, in alleging that Netcare’s agent failed to conduct an

independent investigation and “prepared false documents,” adequately

alleges conduct on the part of Netcare that “was so extreme and

outrageous that it went beyond all bounds of decency and was such as

to be considered utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id.

Finally, the proposed Amended Complaint expressly alleges that, as a

result of Netcare’s alleged misconduct, plaintiff suffered “emotional

distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, anxiety, and depression . . .

.” Amended Complaint, ¶41. 

In short, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to Amend is meritorious. Whether or not plaintiff can establish a

right to recovery on this basis awaits further development.

WHEREUPON, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Doc. No. 24, is

GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Amended Complaint attached

to the motion.

The filing of the Amended Complaint renders moot Netcare’s

Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress Claim, Doc. No. 21, which addresses the original

4

Case: 2:11-cv-00622-GLF-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 11/15/11 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Complaint. The Clerk is therefore DIRECTED to remove that motion from

the Court’s pending motions list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/ Norah McCann King 

Norah McCann King

November 15, 2011 United States Magistrate Judge

5

Case: 2:11-cv-00622-GLF-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 11/15/11 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>