Opinion ID: 757022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of 12(b)(6) Dismissal on Grounds of Official Immunity

Text: 25 Pani argues that even if a fiscal intermediary might be shielded by official immunity, it was improper for the district court to dismiss the case at the pleading stage on the basis of official immunity. We disagree. 26 An affirmative defense may be raised by a pre-answer motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), without resort to summary judgment procedure, if the defense appears on the face of the complaint. See ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir.1994); 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1277, 1357 (2d ed. 1990 & Supp.1998); see also Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir.1992) (res judicata); Ghartey v. St. John's Queens Hosp., 869 F.2d 160, 162 (2d Cir.1989) (statute of limitations); Green v. Maraio, 722 F.2d 1013, 1018-19 (2d Cir.1983) (qualified immunity). It is also well established that an affirmative defense of official immunity should be resolved as early as possible by the court, see Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232-33, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991), and may be resolved by Rule 12(b)(6) if clearly established by the allegations within the complaint, see Vaughn v. United States Small Business Admin., 65 F.3d 1322, 1325-27 & n. 1 (6th Cir.1995); see also Midland Psychiatric Assocs., 969 F.Supp. at 550-52 (Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted based on fiscal intermediary's official immunity); Friedman, 836 F.Supp. at 268 (same). 27 We reject Pani's assertion that nothing in his complaint supports Empire's affirmative defense of official immunity. Pani's complaint makes clear that all his allegations against Empire arise out of its role as a carrier for the Medicare Part B program. See Compl. pp 4-6, 9. Despite Pani's conclusory allegations that Empire's conduct was negligent and fraudulent, it is also clear, as discussed above, that the acts Pani complains of--investigating and referring possible fraud to the authorities--were discretionary and within the scope of Empire's duties. See Group Health, 739 F.Supp. at 930-33; Friedman, 836 F.Supp. at 268; see also Norton v. McShane, 332 F.2d 855, 858-59 (5th Cir.1964) (test is whether the act [has] more or less connection with the general matters committed by law to the officer's control or supervision, and [is not] manifestly or palpably beyond his authority). We therefore affirm the district court's finding that the complaint itself establishes the facts necessary to sustain defendant's immunity defense. 28 Pani contends that the district court relied on extrinsic evidence to determine that immunity should apply and therefore was required to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, allowing Pani the opportunity to present extrinsic evidence in opposition to the motion. Specifically, Pani points to the district court's reference to the Medicare Carriers' Manual (an exhibit attached to the government's motion papers) for the proposition that Empire was required to investigate and report instances of suspected fraud. This argument lacks merit. The district court referred to C. Jack Friedman, Ph.D. & Assocs., P.C. v. Pennsylvania Blue Shield, 836 F.Supp. 263 (E.D.Pa.1993), for the same proposition, indicating that its conclusion was not dependant upon the Medicare Carriers' Manual. Moreover, as discussed more fully above, the fact that Empire was contractually obligated to investigate and report possible fraud was readily established by reference to statutes and case law. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1395u; 42 C.F.R. § 405.371(b); 42 C.F.R. § 421.200; Bodimetric, 903 F.2d at 482 n. 3; Friedman, 836 F.Supp. at 265, 268; Livingston, 788 F.Supp. at 550. It is well established that a district court may rely on matters of public record in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), including case law and statutes. See Marshall County Health Care Auth. v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 1221, 1222 (D.C.Cir.1993); see also Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991) (district court could consider documents of which the plaintiff had notice and which were integral to their claim in ruling on motion to dismiss even though those documents were not incorporated into the complaint by reference); Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir.1991) (district court may examine public disclosure documents on 12(b)(6) motion). 29 Even if the district court had impermissibly relied on extrinsic material on a motion to dismiss, and therefore properly should have converted the 12(b)(6) motion to a motion for summary judgment, we would still conclude that Pani was not prejudiced. The government moved for summary judgment in the alternative. Thus, Pani had sufficient notice that summary judgment was possible and ample opportunity to submit supporting affidavits and evidence. See Groden v. Random House, Inc., 61 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (2d. Cir.1995); see also SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943) (district court's decision must be affirmed if correct result, even if based on improper ground); George v. Kay, 632 F.2d 1103, 1106 (4th Cir.1980) (same). In fact, Pani argued against summary judgment in his memorandum of law to the district court, and in that same memorandum his argument against immunity quoted from and cited to the contract between Empire and HHS that was attached as an exhibit to the government's motion papers.