KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 

5 OF THE NORTHWEST, dba KAISER PERMANENTE 

6 

7 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

10 PAMELA F. MONETTE, 

11 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

) 

) Case No. 

12 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

13 LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL & 

14 HEALTH CENTER, doing business as 

LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL 

CENTER; OREGON ANESTHESIOLOGY 

15 GROUP, PC; PACIFIC SURGICAL, PC; 

RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS, INC.; 

16 PACIFIC NEUROSURGICAL, P.C.; 

17 JEFFERSON CHEN M.D.; MATTHEW A. 

SOLOMON, D.O.; K. DEAN GUBLER, 

18 D.O.; JAMES GILMORE, M.D.; MELISSA 

RADECKI, M.D.; RONALD BARBOSA, 

19 M.D.; JOSEPH WILLIAMS, M.D.; 

WILLIAM LONG, M.D.; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE 

20 NORTHWEST, doing business as KAISER 

PERMANENTE, 21 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) ) 

) 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 

UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(b) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) 

) Complaint filed: March 18, 2015 ) 

) ) ) ) ) 

) ) ) ) 

) 

) 

) 

22 ) 

I+-

__ ________________ ) 

23 24 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 25 OF OREGON: NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

26 1. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, 

27 Defendant, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST, improperly 

28 named as doing business as KAISER PERMANENTE (hereinafter, "Defendant Kaiser") hereby 

1 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 

5 OF THE NORTHWEST, dba KAISER PERMANENTE 

6 

7 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

10 PAMELA F. MONETTE, 

11 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

) 

) Case No. 

12 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

13 LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL & 

14 HEALTH CENTER, doing business as 

LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL 

CENTER; OREGON ANESTHESIOLOGY 

15 GROUP, PC; PACIFIC SURGICAL, PC; 

RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS, INC.; 

16 PACIFIC NEUROSURGICAL, P.C.; 

17 JEFFERSON CHEN M.D.; MATTHEW A. 

SOLOMON, D.O.; K. DEAN GUBLER, 

18 D.O.; JAMES GILMORE, M.D.; MELISSA 

RADECKI, M.D.; RONALD BARBOSA, 

19 M.D.; JOSEPH WILLIAMS, M.D.; 

WILLIAM LONG, M.D.; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE 

20 NORTHWEST, doing business as KAISER 

PERMANENTE, 21 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) ) 

) 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 

UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(b) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) 

) Complaint filed: March 18, 2015 ) 

) ) ) ) ) 

) ) ) ) 

) 

) 

) 

22 ) 

I+-

__ ________________ ) 

23 24 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 25 OF OREGON: NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

26 1. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, 

27 Defendant, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST, improperly 

28 named as doing business as KAISER PERMANENTE (hereinafter, "Defendant Kaiser") hereby 

1 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 
5 Oregon, County of Multnomah, (1021 S.W. 4th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204) by Plaintiff 

6 PAMELA F. MONETTE, (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"). That case is presently docketed in the 

7 Multnomah County Circuit Court as Case Number 15CV00583. A complete copy of the Court 

8 file, including the Complaint for Damages, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

9 3. Defendant Kaiser was served on or about March 31, 2015. This Notice of 

10 Removal is timely filed since it is being filed within 30 days of the date of service as required by 

11 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). No further proceedings are pending at this time. A true and correct copy 

12 of the Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

13 4. Neither Defendant Kaiser nor any of the other defendants has filed an Answer at 

14 this time. 

15 5. Venue is proper with the United States District Court of Oregon under 29 U.S.C. 

16 § 1132(e)(2) in that this action is presently pending in the State of Oregon, County of 

17 Multnomah, which is within the venue of the United States District Court for the District of 

18 Oregon. 

19 6. There are two independent and alternative grounds for removal as set forth below: 

20 (1) federal question removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b) based on Medicare complete 

21 preemption where the gist of the complaint is the payment of benefits under a Medicare plan, and 

22 (2) where the claims are "inextricably intertwined" with a claim for Medicare benefits. 

23 24 25 

I. GENERAL AVERMENTS IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL 

7. Defendant Kaiser is an Oregon corporation and provider of health insurance, and 

26 the provider of Plaintiff's health insurance, and is duly formed and authorized to do business in 

27 the state of Oregon. 

28 

2 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 

5 Oregon, County of Multnomah, (1021 S.W. 4th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204) by Plaintiff 

6 PAMELA F. MONETTE, (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"). That case is presently docketed in the 

7 Multnomah County Circuit Court as Case Number 15CV00583. A complete copy of the Court 

8 file, including the Complaint for Damages, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

9 3. Defendant Kaiser was served on or about March 31, 2015. This Notice of 

10 Removal is timely filed since it is being filed within 30 days of the date of service as required by 

11 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). No further proceedings are pending at this time. A true and correct copy 

12 of the Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

13 4. Neither Defendant Kaiser nor any of the other defendants has filed an Answer at 

14 this time. 

15 5. Venue is proper with the United States District Court of Oregon under 29 U.S.C. 

16 § 1132(e)(2) in that this action is presently pending in the State of Oregon, County of 

17 Multnomah, which is within the venue of the United States District Court for the District of 

18 Oregon. 

19 6. There are two independent and alternative grounds for removal as set forth below: 

20 (1) federal question removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b) based on Medicare complete 

21 preemption where the gist of the complaint is the payment of benefits under a Medicare plan, and 

22 (2) where the claims are "inextricably intertwined" with a claim for Medicare benefits. 

23 24 25 

I. GENERAL AVERMENTS IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL 

7. Defendant Kaiser is an Oregon corporation and provider of health insurance, and 

26 the provider of Plaintiff's health insurance, and is duly formed and authorized to do business in 

27 the state of Oregon. 

28 

2 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 
5 Medicare plan or under a Medicare Advantage Plan ("MA"), her claims are ultimately subject to 

6 federal preemption under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act 

7 of 2003 ("MMA"). It was Congress's intent to cast a wide net of preemption, encompassing 

8 virtually all claims against a Medicare plan, including claims concerning coverage 

9 determinations, benefits, inclusion or treatment of providers, utilization review, appeals, 

10 grievance procedures, and all other aspects of the administration of the plan. To the extent 

11 Plaintiff's claim hinges on standards established under her Medicare plan, the Medicare 

12 regulations establish federal preemption under the Medicare Act which covers state law claims. 

13 42 U.S.C., § 1395w-26(b)(3); 42 C.F.R §422.402. 

14 9. A state law is preempted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress 

15 intended the federal government to occupy exclusively. English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 

16 79,110 S. Ct. 2270, 2275,110 L. Ed. 2d 65 (U.S. 1990). Preemption is fundamentally a 17 question of the intent of Congress, which has the authority to define the extent to which federal 

18 statutes preempt state law. Id. Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory 

19 language regarding Medicare preemption. 

20 10. Congress's express intent that "any State law or regulation (except those relating 

21 to licensing and solvency) ... shall be superceded" is clear. 42 U.S.C., § 1395w-26(b)(3). The 

22 Medicare preemption provision states that federal standards would supersede state law and 

23 regulations with respect to Medicare Advantage plans to the extent that such law or regulation 

24 are "inconsistent" with such standards. Thus, any Medicare program, which provides medical 

25 benefits to seniors through managed care, operates under federal rules. 

26 11. The Courts also recognize the broad preemptive scope of the Medicare Act. The 

27 Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which a claim "arises under" the Medicare 

28 Act: (l) where the "standing and the substantive basis for the presentation of the claims" is the 

3 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 

5 Medicare plan or under a Medicare Advantage Plan ("MA"), her claims are ultimately subject to 

6 federal preemption under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act 

7 of 2003 ("MMA"). It was Congress's intent to cast a wide net of preemption, encompassing 

8 virtually all claims against a Medicare plan, including claims concerning coverage 

9 determinations, benefits, inclusion or treatment of providers, utilization review, appeals, 

10 grievance procedures, and all other aspects of the administration of the plan. To the extent 

11 Plaintiff's claim hinges on standards established under her Medicare plan, the Medicare 

12 regulations establish federal preemption under the Medicare Act which covers state law claims. 

13 42 U.S.C., § 1395w-26(b)(3); 42 C.F.R §422.402. 

14 9. A state law is preempted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress 

15 intended the federal government to occupy exclusively. English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 

16 79,110 S. Ct. 2270, 2275,110 L. Ed. 2d 65 (U.S. 1990). Preemption is fundamentally a 17 question of the intent of Congress, which has the authority to define the extent to which federal 

18 statutes preempt state law. Id. Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory 

19 language regarding Medicare preemption. 

20 10. Congress's express intent that "any State law or regulation (except those relating 

21 to licensing and solvency) ... shall be superceded" is clear. 42 U.S.C., § 1395w-26(b)(3). The 

22 Medicare preemption provision states that federal standards would supersede state law and 

23 regulations with respect to Medicare Advantage plans to the extent that such law or regulation 

24 are "inconsistent" with such standards. Thus, any Medicare program, which provides medical 

25 benefits to seniors through managed care, operates under federal rules. 

26 11. The Courts also recognize the broad preemptive scope of the Medicare Act. The 

27 Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which a claim "arises under" the Medicare 

28 Act: (l) where the "standing and the substantive basis for the presentation of the claims" is the 

3 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 
5 confirmed that such state law claims "arise under" the Medicare Act. Kaiser v. Blue Cross of 

6 California, 347 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003). The claim against Defendant Kaiser in this 

7 matter is a direct claim for benefits under a Medicare plan. As such, the Medicare Act, and 

8 therefore federal law, completely preempt these claims and removal to federal court under 

9 federal question jurisdiction is appropriate. 

10 II. 

11 

REMOVAL UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(a) AND (b) - MEDICARE PREEMPTION 

12. Plaintiffs state court Complaint alleges claims for reimbursement for medical 

12 services provided to a Kaiser member enrolled in Kaiser's Medicare Advantage Plan. 

13 13. The Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395, et seq., establishes a federally funded health 

14 insurance program that is administered by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

15 Services ("CMS") (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) of the United 

16 States Department of Health and Human Services. The claim is completely preempted by Part C 17 of the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395w21 et seq., in accordance with the preemption provisions 

18 of 42 C.F.R. § 422.402 (2005) and 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-26(b)(3), as amended and expanded by 

19 the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, Public Law 108-

20 173 (2003), and is properly removed. 

21 14. A clear framework exists for determining whether a claim arises under Medicare 

22 for purposes of the exclusive review provisions of the Medicare Act. The two part test 

23 established in Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614-615 (1984), is as follows: A claim arises 

24 under Medicare if (1) both the standing and the substantive basis for the presentation of the claim 

25 is the Medicare Act, or (2) the claim is inextricably intettwined with a claim for Medicare 

26 benefits. 27 15. Removal is appropriate under the complete preemption doctrine where a federal 

28 statute expressly preempts state law standards and provides exclusive federal remedies. See, e.g., 

4 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U .S.C. § 1441 (b )(FEDERAL QUESTION) 

5 confirmed that such state law claims "arise under" the Medicare Act. Kaiser v. Blue Cross of 

6 California, 347 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003). The claim against Defendant Kaiser in this 

7 matter is a direct claim for benefits under a Medicare plan. As such, the Medicare Act, and 

8 therefore federal law, completely preempt these claims and removal to federal court under 

9 federal question jurisdiction is appropriate. 

10 II. 

11 

REMOVAL UNDER 28 U.S.c. § 1441(a) AND (b) - MEDICARE PREEMPTION 

12. Plaintiffs state court Complaint alleges claims for reimbursement for medical 

12 services provided to a Kaiser member enrolled in Kaiser's Medicare Advantage Plan. 

13 13. The Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395, et seq., establishes a federally funded health 

14 insurance program that is administered by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

15 Services ("CMS") (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) of the United 

16 States Department of Health and Human Services. The claim is completely preempted by Part C 17 of the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395w21 et seq., in accordance with the preemption provisions 

18 of 42 C.F.R. § 422.402 (2005) and 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-26(b)(3), as amended and expanded by 

19 the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, Public Law 108-

20 173 (2003), and is properly removed. 

21 14. A clear framework exists for determining whether a claim arises under Medicare 

22 for purposes of the exclusive review provisions of the Medicare Act. The two part test 

23 established in Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614-615 (1984), is as follows: A claim arises 

24 under Medicare if (1) both the standing and the substantive basis for the presentation of the claim 

25 is the Medicare Act, or (2) the claim is inextricably intettwined with a claim for Medicare 

26 benefits. 27 15. Removal is appropriate under the complete preemption doctrine where a federal 

28 statute expressly preempts state law standards and provides exclusive federal remedies. See, e.g., 

4 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U .S.C. § 1441 (b )(FEDERAL QUESTION) 
5 U.S.C. § 1395w-26(b)(3). 

6 16. The Medicare Act also provides an exclusive federal remedy for claims pertaining 

7 to the improper denial or other administration of plan benefits as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

8 and (h), 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff, 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii, 42 U.S.c. § 1395w-22(f) & (g), and 42 C.F.R. § 

9 422.560 et al. (2005). This mandatory administrative process applies to claims brought by 

10 Plaintiff as assignee of a plan participant. 42 C.F.R. § 422.113 (2005); 65 Fed. Reg. 40203 

11 (2000) ("a dispute over whether the conditions for Medicare coverage for post-stabilization 

12 services under § 422.100 and § 422.113 have been met could be resolved in an enrollee's appeal 

13 ... or in an appeal by a provider"). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(g)(5) and 42 U.S.C. § 

14 1395ff, incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction for 

15 review of claims once this mandatory administrative process has been exhausted. 

16 17. Removal is appropriate under the "complete preemption" doctrine where a federal 17 statute: (1) expressly preempts state law standards; and (2) provides exclusive federal remedies. 

18 See, e.g., Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1,8,156 L. Ed. 2d 1,8-9, 123 S. Ct. 2058, 

19 2063 (2003). Because the Medicare Act expressly preempts and provides the exclusive remedy 

20 for Plaintiff s claims with respect to a Kaiser member enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan, 

21 the State Court Action is removable under the complete preemption doctrine. See, Dial v. 

22 Healthspring of Ala., Inc., 501 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (state law causes of action 

23 completely preempted by Medicare Act and properly removable). 

24 III. PROCEDURAL AVERMENTS 

25 18. As required by section 28 U.S.c. § 1446, Plaintiff will be given notice of the 

26 filing of this Notice of Removal, and a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will be 

27 filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. 

28 

5 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U .S.C. § 1441 (b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 

5 U.S.C. § 1395w-26(b)(3). 

6 16. The Medicare Act also provides an exclusive federal remedy for claims pertaining 

7 to the improper denial or other administration of plan benefits as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

8 and (h), 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff, 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii, 42 U.S.c. § 1395w-22(f) & (g), and 42 C.F.R. § 

9 422.560 et al. (2005). This mandatory administrative process applies to claims brought by 

10 Plaintiff as assignee of a plan participant. 42 C.F.R. § 422.113 (2005); 65 Fed. Reg. 40203 

11 (2000) ("a dispute over whether the conditions for Medicare coverage for post-stabilization 

12 services under § 422.100 and § 422.113 have been met could be resolved in an enrollee's appeal 

13 ... or in an appeal by a provider"). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(g)(5) and 42 U.S.C. § 

14 1395ff, incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction for 

15 review of claims once this mandatory administrative process has been exhausted. 

16 17. Removal is appropriate under the "complete preemption" doctrine where a federal 17 statute: (1) expressly preempts state law standards; and (2) provides exclusive federal remedies. 

18 See, e.g., Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1,8,156 L. Ed. 2d 1,8-9, 123 S. Ct. 2058, 

19 2063 (2003). Because the Medicare Act expressly preempts and provides the exclusive remedy 

20 for Plaintiff s claims with respect to a Kaiser member enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan, 

21 the State Court Action is removable under the complete preemption doctrine. See, Dial v. 

22 Healthspring of Ala., Inc., 501 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (state law causes of action 

23 completely preempted by Medicare Act and properly removable). 

24 III. PROCEDURAL AVERMENTS 

25 18. As required by section 28 U.S.c. § 1446, Plaintiff will be given notice of the 

26 filing of this Notice of Removal, and a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will be 

27 filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. 

28 

5 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U .S.C. § 1441 (b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 
5 Circuit Court of Oregon, County of Multnomah be removed therefrom to this United States 

6 District Court for the District of Oregon. 

7 

8 Dated: April 29, 2015 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 

Donald B. Bowerman, Esq. (OSB #590110) 

Email: Don@BDLandL.com 

Alec J. Laidlaw, Esq. (OSB #055154) 

Email: Alec@BDLandL.com 

Tel: (503) 650-0700/ Fax: (503) 650-0053 

Attorneys for Defendant 

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF 

THE NORTHWEST, doing business as KAISER 

PERMANENTE 

6 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 

5 Circuit Court of Oregon, County of Multnomah be removed therefrom to this United States 

6 District Court for the District of Oregon. 

7 

8 Dated: April 29, 2015 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 

Donald B. Bowerman, Esq. (OSB #590110) 

Email: Don@BDLandL.com 

Alec J. Laidlaw, Esq. (OSB #055154) 

Email: Alec@BDLandL.com 

Tel: (503) 650-0700/ Fax: (503) 650-0053 

Attorneys for Defendant 

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF 

THE NORTHWEST, doing business as KAISER 

PERMANENTE 

6 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 
5 notification of such filing to the following attorneys: 

6 7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Robert S. Perkins (OSB #840814) 

Attorney At Law 

4949 Meadows Road, Suite 400 

Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2491 

Email: rperkins@draneaslaw.com 

Tel: (503) 222-4449 I Fax: (503) 496-5510 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Legacy Emanuel 

Hospital & Health Center 

Scott G O'Donnell (OSB #933849) 

Keating Jones Hughes PC 

1 SW Columbia St Ste 800 

Portland, OR 97258 

Email: sodonnell@keatingjones.com 

Tel: (503) 222-9955 I Fax: (503) 796-0699 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Pacific 

17 Neurosurgical, PC and Jefferson Chen, MD 

18 Nikola Lyn Jones (OSB #941013) 

Lindsay Hart LLP 

19 

20 

21 

1300 SW 5th Ave Ste 3400 

Portland, OR 97201 

Email: njones@lindsayhart.com 

Tel: (503) 226-7677 I Fax: (503) 226-7697 

22 Of Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Surgical, 

PC, L. Dean Gubler, DO, Ronald Barbosa, 

MD, and William Long, MD 23 

Dennis W Percell (OSB #752974) 

24 Arnold Gallagher PC 25 26 27 28 

800 Willamette St Ste 800 

Eugene, OR 97440 

Email: dpercell@arnoldgallagher.com 

Tel: (541) 484-0188 I Fax: (541) 484-0536 

lsi 

7 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Kaiser Foundation 

Health Plan of the Northwest 

Donald B. Bowerman, Esq. (OSB #590110) Bowerman David Laidlaw & Laidlaw, LLC 

1001 Molalla Ave, Suite 208 

Oregon City, OR 97045 

Email: Don@BDLandL.com 

Tel: (503) 650-0700 I Fax: (503) 650-0053 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Melissa Radecki, MD 

Karen O'Kasey (OSB #870696) Hart Wagner LLP 

1000 SW Broadway Ste 2000 

POliland, OR 97205 

Email: kok@hartwagner.com 

Tel: (503) 222-4499 I (503) 222-2301 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Oregon Anesthesiology 

Group, PC and Matthew A. Solomon, DO 

David S Mepham (OSB #930028) Hodgkinson Street Mepham LLC 

1620 SW Taylor Ste 350 

Portland, OR 97205 

Email: dsm@hs-Iegal.com 

Tel: (503) 222-1143 I Fax: (503) 222-1296 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Radiology Consultants, 

Inc. and James Gilmore, MD 

Larry A Brisbee (OSB #670111) 

Brisbee & Stockton LLC 

139 NE Lincoln St 

Hillsboro, OR 97123 

Email: lab@brisbeeandstockton.com 

Tel: (503) 648-6677 I Fax: (503) 648-1091 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § I44I(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION) 

5 notification of such filing to the following attorneys: 

6 7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Robert S. Perkins (OSB #840814) 

Attorney At Law 

4949 Meadows Road, Suite 400 

Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2491 

Email: rperkins@draneaslaw.com 

Tel: (503) 222-4449 I Fax: (503) 496-5510 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Legacy Emanuel 

Hospital & Health Center 

Scott G O'Donnell (OSB #933849) 

Keating Jones Hughes PC 

1 SW Columbia St Ste 800 

Portland, OR 97258 

Email: sodonnell@keatingjones.com 

Tel: (503) 222-9955 I Fax: (503) 796-0699 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Pacific 

17 Neurosurgical, PC and Jefferson Chen, MD 

18 Nikola Lyn Jones (OSB #941013) 

Lindsay Hart LLP 

19 

20 

21 

1300 SW 5th Ave Ste 3400 

Portland, OR 97201 

Email: njones@lindsayhart.com 

Tel: (503) 226-7677 I Fax: (503) 226-7697 

22 Of Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Surgical, 

PC, L. Dean Gubler, DO, Ronald Barbosa, 

MD, and William Long, MD 23 

Dennis W Percell (OSB #752974) 

24 Arnold Gallagher PC 25 26 27 28 

800 Willamette St Ste 800 

Eugene, OR 97440 

Email: dpercell@arnoldgallagher.com 

Tel: (541) 484-0188 I Fax: (541) 484-0536 

lsi 

7 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Kaiser Foundation 

Health Plan of the Northwest 

Donald B. Bowerman, Esq. (OSB #590110) Bowerman David Laidlaw & Laidlaw, LLC 

1001 Molalla Ave, Suite 208 

Oregon City, OR 97045 

Email: Don@BDLandL.com 

Tel: (503) 650-0700 I Fax: (503) 650-0053 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Melissa Radecki, MD 

Karen O'Kasey (OSB #870696) Hart Wagner LLP 

1000 SW Broadway Ste 2000 

POliland, OR 97205 

Email: kok@hartwagner.com 

Tel: (503) 222-4499 I (503) 222-2301 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Oregon Anesthesiology 

Group, PC and Matthew A. Solomon, DO 

David S Mepham (OSB #930028) Hodgkinson Street Mepham LLC 

1620 SW Taylor Ste 350 

Portland, OR 97205 

Email: dsm@hs-Iegal.com 

Tel: (503) 222-1143 I Fax: (503) 222-1296 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Radiology Consultants, 

Inc. and James Gilmore, MD 

Larry A Brisbee (OSB #670111) 

Brisbee & Stockton LLC 

139 NE Lincoln St 

Hillsboro, OR 97123 

Email: lab@brisbeeandstockton.com 

Tel: (503) 648-6677 I Fax: (503) 648-1091 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § I44I(b) (FEDERAL QUESTION)