Oaks Hospital. Ms, Beisner allegedly then called the police and had Benjamin put back in jail.
Benjamin then spent two weeks in jail, On May 24, 2000, Benjamin was admitted to Maryville
Academy.

Count I of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges medical malpractice against Dr.
Baber. Count Tl alleges medical malpractice against Dr. Sinha, Count III alleges medical
malpractice against Bruce Anderson. Count IV alleges a violation of the Emergency Medical
‘Treatment and Labor Act (“AEMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. 1395dd(d)(1) against Linden Oaks Hospital,
Edward Hospital, Dr. Baber, Dr. Sinha and Bruce Anderson. Count V alleges a violation of 42
U.S.C. 1983 against Stephanie Brennan. Count VI alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the
DuPage Health Department, Count VII alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Margarct
Jones. Count VITlalleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Gloriana Acolatse. Count LX alleges
a violation of 42 U.S.C, 1983 against Debbie McEvilly, Count X alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C.
1983 against Jennifer Beisner. Count X1 alleges medical malpractice against Linden Oaks Hospital.
Count XII alleges civil conspiracy against all defendants. Count XII alleges intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all defendants. Count XIV requests injunctive relief against DCFS.
Count XV alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 against DCFS personnel, Margarct Jones, Gloriana
Acolatse, and Debby Mckvilly.

Currently before the Court are the motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
filed by Dr. Sinha and Dr. Baber.

DISCUSSION
When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court accepts as true

all well pled factual allegations in the complaint and views them, along with reasonable inferences


date, Ms. Albright would notify DCFS that Mrs. Binkley was neglecting her child. Ms, Albright and
Mr. Anderson allegedly also notified Mrs, Binkley that they would pursue her for the mounting
medical bills.

On April 8, 2000, Margaret Jones, a DCFS investigator, allegedly determined that Mrs.
Binkley was committing child abuse, child abandonment, and medical neglect of Benjamin. Mrs.
Jones allegedly recommended that Benjamin be discharged from Linden Oaks and placed in jail.
Stephanie Brennan, a DuPage County health department evaluator, then recommended that Benjamin
have no further inpatient hospitalization and no further psychological assessment for continuing
hospitalization, despite the fact that Benjamin's medical record allegedly was replete with behaviors
consistent with his severe unstabilized mental illness,

On April 10, 2000, Dr. Baber discharged Benjamin from Linden Oaks. Benjamin was then
taken to jail, where Plaintiffs allege that he was deprived of his right to medical care and education.
Gloriana Acolatse, a DCFS case worker, recommended that Benjamin be admitted to shelter care
at the Center House for Boys, following his release from jail. Plaintiffs allege that Benjamin was
deprived of his right to medical care and education while at Center House for Boys.

Debbie McEvilly, a DCFS case worker, took over Benjamin's case and recommended that
Benjamin remain in shelter care at the Center House for Boys, rather than obtaining the in- patient
psychiatric treatment that Benjamin allegedly needed, Benjamin remained at the Center House for
Boys until May 10, 2000.

On May 10, 2000, Benjamin’s treating physician, Dr. Schwartz, allegedly ordered that
Benjamin be admitted to Glen Oaks Hospital. On that same day, Jennifer Beisner, a DCIS

evaluator, performed an evaluation of Benjamin and allegedly blocked Benjamin's admission to Glen


to be drawn from them, in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Cornfield v, Consolidated High School
Dist. No, 230, 991 F.2d 1316, 1324 (7 Cir, 1993). The court must grant a motion to dismiss,
however, when it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff can provide no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

1. EMTALA Claims

{n Count [V, Plaintiff's attempt to state a claim for a violation of EMTALA against Dr. Sinha
and Dr. Baber. “[TJhe Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1395dd(d)(2)(A) creates a cause of action only against a participating hospital, The statutory
definition of participating hospital does not encompass an individual physician,” King v. Ahrens,
16 F.3d 265, 271 (8” Cir. 1994). Moreover, in their response brief’, Plaintiffs concede that
EMTALA may not be used in a civil cause of action against an individual physician. Plaintilfs have
agrced to dismiss this Count against Dr. Sinha and Dr. Baber.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint fails to state an EMTALA claim
against Dr, Sinha and Dr. Baber. Therefore, we grant Defendants Sinha’s and Baber’s motions to
dismiss the EMTALA claims against them.

TI. State Law Claims

As for the remaining supplemental state law claims filed against Dr, Sinha and Dr. Baber,
a district court may decline to cxercise its supplemental jurisdiction when it has disposed of all
federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); O Grady v, Village
of Libertyville, 304 F.3d 719, 725 (7" Cir. 2002). Having granted the motions to dismiss on the only
federal claims alleged against Defendants Sinha and Baber (ihe EMTALA claims), we dismiss the

remaining state law claims against them without prejudice.


Wee

Minute Of ott. De
United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois
wr Maglitrae ue Wayne R. Andersen “Then Argel Suge
CASE NUMBER 2.€ 2508 DATE 3/31/2004
CASE Benjamin Binkley et al vs. Edwards Hospital et al
TITLE J

Lin the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being prescnted.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY;

(1) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Qa Brief in support of motion due.

3) q Answer brief to motion duc___. Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) 0 Ruling/Hearingon set for at

(5) 0 Status hearing}held/continued to) [set for/re-set for}on__——set for at.
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_—ssetfor__— at.
(7) a Trinl(set for/re-set for]on___——_at

(8) a {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agteement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) OO Local Rule 41.1 OC FRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(do) [Other docket enty] Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER; For the foregoing
reasons, we grant the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Shoba Sinha [48-1] and Riaz Baber
[55-1]. Counts I and I are dismissed without prejudice. Counts XII and XLII are dismissed
without prejudice against defendants Sinha and Baber. Count 1V is dismissed with prejudice as
to defendants Sinha and Baber.

a) @ {Por further detail see order attached to the original minute order.

No wotices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. sumer mains i
Notices mailed by judge’s staff, 3 | 3} )
Notified counsel by telephone. ; Moe dpelinen
VY | Dockering to rail notices. dunog Lyi stg ‘sn .
Viet he ia
Mail AQ 450 farm, raaTy docking opal pis 0
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. ee aes ee
Mowe RS To nO
wi EE
courtroom date nite ovice
TSA deputy’s Pp eee
initials ei
 aatertiin wecaived in ;
central Clerk's Office smaling deputy iiss

5


Therefore, we dismiss without prejudice, Count I (medical malpractice) against Defendant
Baber, Count LI (medical malpractice) against Defendant Sinha, Count XII (civil conspiracy) against
Defendants Sinha and Baber, and Count XII (intentional infliction of emotional distress)against
Defendants Sinha and Baber. However, at the time we decide the remaining pending motions to
dismiss filed by the other defendants in this case, if it is determined that Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged federal causes of action against other defendants, we will reconsider whether to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of Defendants Sinha and Baber.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we grant the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Shoba Sinha
(#48-1), and Riaz Baber (# 55-1). Counts I and LL are dismissed without prejudice, Counts XII and
Xlllare dismissed without prejudice against Defendants Sinha and Baber. Count IV is dismissed

with prejudice as to Defendants Sinha and Baber.

nye (La

/ Wayne R, Andersen
United States District Judge

Tt is so ordered.

Dated: / HO 4, AY


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN BINKLEY, a minor, by his parent
and next best friend, REBECCA BINKLEY; and
REBECCA BINKLEY, individually,

No, 02 C 2508
Plaintiff,s
v.
Wayne R. Andersen
EDWARDS HOSPITAL d/b/a EDWARD District Judge
HOSPITAL & HEALTH SERVICES, an
Illinois not-for-profit corporation, CHARTER
LINDEN OAKS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SYSTEM d/b/a LINDEN OAKS HOSPITAL, an
Minois corporation; I.LINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES;
DUPAGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT;
RIAZ BABER, M.D.; BRUCE ANDERSON;
SHOBA SINHA, M.D.;, JENNIFER BEISNER;
STEPHANIE BRENNAN; MARGARET JONES;
GLORIANA ACOLATSE; and DEBBIE
McEVILLY,

ee SSS SS SS SS eS SS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on the motions of Defendants Shoba Sinha, and Riaz Baber to
dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. For the following reasons, the motions are granted.
BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2003, Plaintiffs Benjamin Binkley, a minor, and Rebecca Binkley, his mother
(“Plaintiffs”) filed their First Amended Complaint. In this Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that on
March 23, 2000, Benjamin presented to the emergency department at Linden Oaks Hospital and was
examined by the on-call physician, Dr. Sinha, Dr. Sinha allegedly determined that Benjamin had an

emergency medical condition and that such condition was a mental illness or emotional disturbance

(o|


of such severity that hospitalization was necessary, Benjamin was then admitted to the locked
adolescent inpatient unit at Linden Oaks.

On March 24, 2000, Mrs. Binkley allegedly reported to Diana Halley, an employee of Linden
Oaks, that Benjamin's health insurance would be exhausted at midnight of the tenth day of admission
and that Mrs. Binkley believed Benjamin to be in need of long term residential care for his severc
mental illness. Ms. Halley allegedly noted in Benjamin’s medical chart Mrs. Binkley's inability to
pay for an extended hospital stay for Benjamin. Plaintiffs allege that, following Ms. Halley’s
notation of Mrs. Binkley’s inability to pay for extended medical care, all efforts to provide reasonable
and necessary medical care to Benjamin by Linden Oaks ceased.

Plaintiffs further allege that Benjamin’s attending physicians, Drs. Baber and Sinha, falsified
Benjamin’s medical record in order to make Benjamin's medical condition appear stabilized, when
it was not stabilized. Throughout Benjamin's admission, Mrs, Binkicy allegedly made repeated
requests for transfer of Benjamin to a state operated mental health facility, bul those requests were
denied.

On April 5, 2000, Benjamin's attending physician, Dr. Baber, informed Mrs. Binkley that
Benjamin's medical condition was stable and that Benjamin would be discharged from Linden Oaks
the next day. Plaintiffs allege that, at that time, Benjamin was on suicide and assault precautions and
was receiving fifieen minute checks by the staff (o ensure his safety and the safety of others.

Mrs, Binkley refused to accept Benjamin for discharge on April 6, 2000 in light of her belicf
that he suffered from severe unstabilized mental illness. On April 7, 2000, Mrs, Binkley was
notified by Paula Albright, associate general counsel for Edward Hospital, and Bruce Anderson,

facility director of Linden Oaks, that if Mrs, Binkley did not accept Benjamin for discharge on that