Opinion
Civil Action No. MJG-03-1717.
October 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has before it Defendant America West Airlines, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court [Paper 11], and the materials submitted related thereto. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.
I. BACKGROUND
In the instant case, John Yanez ("Plaintiff" or "Yanez") brings suit for injuries allegedly suffered on July 1, 2001 on America West Airlines flight number 244 from Baltimore Washington International Airport (Baltimore, Maryland) to McCarran International Airport (Las Vegas, Nevada).
Yanez alleges that while en route to Las Vegas, a flight attendant ran into his left knee with a beverage cart ("Beverage Cart Incident"). He contends that the resulting knee injury required him to go to a Las Vegas hospital the next day, July 2, 2001. In his complaint, Yanez alleges that he has suffered permanent injury from the Beverage Cart Incident and seeks $450,000 in damages. In the course of discovery, Yanez has claimed that because of the Beverage Cart Incident he is "in constant and sometimes severe pain" (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D, Interrog. 10), his activities are limited (Dep. of Yanez at 149-150), his sleep is disrupted and he has suffered an "overall disruption of life." Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D, Interrog. 11.
America West Airlines, Inc. ("Defendant" or "America West") has filed the instant motion to dismiss for fraud on the Court contending that Yanez has lied under oath, sworn to false and misleading interrogatory responses, and deliberately withheld documents from production.
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR DISMISSAL
The Supreme Court has held that the federal courts have the inherent authority "to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). To this end, a federal district court possesses the inherent power to dismiss the complaint of one "who defiles the judicial system by committing a fraud on the court." Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989). See also, Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding "courts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice"); Hull v. Municipality of San Juan, 356 F.3d 98, 102 (1st Cir. 2004) (finding that fraud on the court is a " potential basis for dismissing a claim on the facts where a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). Were the courts not granted this discretion, they would be hindered to defend "their integrity against unscrupulous marauders". Aoude, 892 F.2d, at 1117. However, given the severity of dismissal as a remedy, a district court may dismiss a case only "when circumstances make such action appropriate." Link, 370 U.S. at 1390.
III. DISCUSSION
As discussed herein, America West has produced compelling proof that Yanez has engaged in a pattern of fraud and deception to inflate his damages in the instant case. The following chronology is pertinent:
July 1, 2001: Beverage Cart Incident
March 13, 2002: Yanez is treated by orthopedist Dr. Larry Shall ("Dr. Shall") for injuries allegedly suffered from the Beverage Cart Incident.
March 24, 2002: Workplace Injury
April 1, 2002: Yanez files an "Accident Injury Report" with his employer where the Workplace Injury is described as "Hurt knee hip."
April 11, 2002: Yanez examined by orthopedist Dr. Glenn Nichols ("Dr. Nichols") for his Workplace Injury; physical therapy prescribed.
April 17 — May 8, 2002 Physical therapy for Workplace Injury
June 17, 2002: Yanez examined by orthopedist Dr. Robert Neff ("Dr. Neff") for left knee pain, allegedly caused by the Beverage Cart Incident.
June 23, 2002: Yanez examined by Dr. Nichols (Workplace Injury doctor) for his complaint of leg buckling from back pain. Dr. Nichols orders an MRI of Yanez's lumbar spine.
July 17, 2002: Report of MRI study of Yanez's lumbar spine indicates disc bulging or protrusion, degenerative disc disease, and bilateral hip joint osteoarthritis.
July 2002 — March 2003: Yanez continues treatment under Dr. Nichols for the
Workplace Injury.
November 11, 2003: America West's Counsel inquires as to the completeness of Yanez's responses to written interrogatories numbers 16 and 17 served in the instant case.
December 12, 2003: Yanez files Virginia and federal workers compensation claims for the Workplace Injury.
February 16, 2004: Yanez is examined by Dr. Nichols for back pain caused by the Workplace Injury. Dr. Nichols tells Yanez to take glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate.
March 11, 2004: Dr. Nichols prescribes Bextra for arthritis purportedly caused by the Workplace Injury.
March 17, 2004: Deposition of Yanez
In its Motion to Dismiss, America West presents evidence of lies, misrepresentations and omissions by Yanez that establishes a deliberate course of action to fraudulently inflate damages resulting from the Beverage Cart. Specifically:
1. False denial of injuries suffered subsequent to the Beverage Cart Incident.
2. Failure to disclose complete medical history to treating doctor in the Beverage Cart Incident.
3. False and misleading testimony at deposition regarding medication.
4. Incomplete and misleading response to interrogatories on medical history.
5. Misleading response to interrogatory on previous treatment for knees.
6. False denial of missing work for any injury except the alleged Beverage Cart injury.
As discussed herein, Yanez deliberately sought to hide the Workplace Injury and its effects from the Defendant and this Court so as to present a false picture of the extent of his allegedly compensable injuries resulting from the Beverage Cart Incident.
A. False Denial of Subsequent Workplace Injury
Plaintiff suffered the Workplace Injury on March 24, 2002, a little less than nine months after the Beverage Cart Incident. He received medical advice and treatment for the Workplace Injury from health care providers other than those involved in treatment for the Workplace Injury through at least March 11, 2004, less than a week prior to his March 17, 2004 deposition in the instant case.
In his March 17, 2004 deposition, Yanez testified falsely, expressly disclaiming any "surgeries, accidents and injuries" since 1996 or 1997 other than the knee injuries allegedly caused by the Beverage Cart Incident. Dep. of Yanez at 152-160. No mention at all was made of the Workplace Injury sustained in March, 2002, in which Yanez suffered back and hip injuries for which he had been undergoing care as recently as six days earlier.
Plaintiff does not deny that his answer was incomplete and misleading; however, he contends that he erred because of his state of exhaustion at the time of deposition. Pl.'s Opp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, at Aff. 1. Plaintiff offers no evidence to support his contention that "observing the Plaintiff's demeanor and his state of exhaustion [during deposition], one could clearly see that he was intending neither to deceive anyone nor to make a false claim . . ." Id. at 6.
If "one could clearly see" what Yanez claims, it is passingly strange that even his attorney did not notice and either seek a recess or place some statement on the record. Moreover, in view of the obvious importance of the medical treatment for the Beverage Cart Incident, it is inconceivable that Plaintiff's counsel — had he known of the matter — would not have corrected the error rather than let Yanez proceed to place known false testimony on the record.
There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Plaintiffs' counsel was aware of or in any way knowingly participated in Yanez' fraudulent conduct.
Furthermore, Yanez's alleged exhaustion amnesia did not prevent him from recalling his other accidents or injuries including that he was hit by a bicycle as a child (Dep. of Yanez at 153), was hurt lifting weights (Id.), had his nose broken about four times, (Id. at 154) and got popped a couple times playing football and tumbling thirty years ago (Id. at 155).
In response to Defendant's request for production of documents of "all medical records reflecting examination . . . that have not heretofore been provided by you in this lawsuit", Plaintiff claimed that "[r]ecords pertaining to prior treatment are unavailable to me due to the period of time that has elapsed." Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. S, Req. 8.
Plaintiff offers no explanation for his failure to respond completely to Defendant's request for production of all medical records, except to say that he and his counsel produced "everything in their possession regarding the medical documents they had." Pl.'s Opp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss at 6. Even if the statement were literally true to the extent that Yanez and counsel did not have, in their physical possession, medical records regarding treatment for the Beverage Cart Incident, Yanez most certainly knew that his health care providers would have pertinent records and should have obtained the records or, at least, should have identified them.
In sum, the Court finds, without doubt, that Plaintiff's false deposition was part of deliberate scheme to hide material evidence that would be detrimental to his claim for damages.
B. Failure to Disclose Medical History to Treating Physician
America West has proven that Yanez obtained treatment for the Workplace Injury from an orthopedist totally separate from those providing care for the Beverage Cart Incident and also never disclosed the Workplace Injury (or ongoing treatment) to those providing care for the Beverage Cart Incident. Accordingly, the Beverage Cart Incident health care providers, whose records and testimony would be critical to Plaintiff's damages claims, would exclude reference to or consideration of the obvious causation issues created by the Workplace Injury.
Yanez was treated by Dr. Shall and Dr. Neff at Orthopaedic Associates of Virginia ("Orthopaedic Associates") for the Beverage Cart Incident. Indeed, Yanez was examined by Dr. Shall on March 13, 2002, eleven days before he suffered the Workplace Injury. Moreover, the Accident Injury Report of the Workplace Injury, prepared when Yanez reported his injury to his employer, reflects that he was sent to Dr. Shall for treatment. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. E. However, Yanez did not go to Dr. Shall (or anyone in his office) who would, obviously, have known of the Beverage Cart Incident. Instead, Yanez obtained treatment for the Workplace Injury from Dr. Nichols, an orthopedist not associated with Orthopaedic Associates. Dr. Nichols' records of Yanez's June 17, 2002 visit do not indicate that Yanez reported the Workplace Injury or his ongoing treatment, although it is perfectly obvious that this would be highly relevant and included in the medical record. Moreover, the November 4, 2002 records of Dr. Neff, who was treating Yanez for the Beverage Cart Incident, explicitly state that Yanez told him that "he had no further injury." Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. G.
Plaintiff claims that he went to Dr. Nichols instead of the doctors at Orthopaedic Associates because Orthopaedic Associates had no appointments available. Pl.'s Opp. Def.'s Mot. at 3. The Court does not find this uncorroborated evidence credible.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant has no evidence as to what was asked and answered during his evaluation by Dr. Neff or what Dr. Neff intended to write and not to write in his reports. Id. at 4. However, Plaintiff does not present any evidence, not even his own sworn testimony, establishing that he did tell Dr. Neff of the Beverage Cart Incident injury and treatment.
The Court concludes that Yanez, as part of his scheme to defraud Defendant and the Court, intentionally withheld material information from the health care professionals on whom he is relying in the instant case and also from Dr. Nichols who was treating him for the Workplace Injury.
C. False and Misleading Statements about Medication
Yanez lied and attempted to mislead during his deposition when discussing the medications he was taking. Approximately one month before his March 17, 2004 deposition, Yanez visited Dr. Nichols (Workplace Injury doctor), complaining of persistent back pain that had been "getting worse over the past six months or so." Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. Y. Dr. Nichols prescribed Bextra for arthritis and told Yanez to "take glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate." Id. During his deposition, Yanez claimed that the only medication he took were baby aspirin, Prilosec and "a couple of cartilage type". Dep. of Yanez, 152. Yanez failed to reveal he had been prescribed Bextra. Moreover, while Dr. Nichols had recommended the glucosamine to treat his Workplace Injury, Yanez presented the half truth that "I've got two or three of [the glucosamine] that I've tried taking to see if that helps." Def's. Mot. Dismiss, at 13. Thus, he hid the fact that glucosamine had been recommended by the physician treating his Workplace Injury. Plaintiff offers no explanation to rebut America West's contention that he falsely testified regarding his medication.
The Court concludes that the false medication testimony was part of Yanez' fraudulent scheme. Moreover, the very fact that he mentioned taking glucosamine belies the contention that he was too exhausted to remember the Workplace Injury for which the drug had been recommended by Dr. Nichols.
D. Incomplete and Misleading Response to Interrogatory 17 on Previous Medical Treatment
In Interrogatory 17, Yanez was asked to:
"Identify all medical doctors, osteopaths, chiropractors, or other practitioners of the medical arts who have, within the 10-year period immediately preceding the occurrence, examined, conducted studies of, diagnosed, consulted with, or treated you." Interrog. of Yanez, 17.
In his answer, Yanez identified only two medical providers, neither of which was Dr. Nichols.
Skeptical of this response given the broad scope of the interrogatory, Defendant's counsel inquired with Plaintiff's counsel on at least three occasions as to whether there was a misunderstanding with respect to the interrogatory, but received no update or supplement. Def. Mot. Dismiss, at 8 n. 46. Defendant does not contend, and the Court does not find, that Plaintiff's counsel was aware of Dr. Nichols. America West then undertook its own investigation of Yanez's medical history by subpoenaing CIGNA HealthCare, Yanez's health care provider. CIGNA HealthCare produced documentation of other medical services rendered to Yanez by a number of doctors and hospitals that Yanez failed to identify.
Treatments during the 18-month period preceding the Beverage Cart Incident included episodes of chest pain (Dec. 3, 2000; Mar. 31, 2001; Apr. 1, 2001; Apr. 2, 2001; Apr. 3, 2001), painful respiration (Dec. 3, 2000), syncope and collapse (Apr. 1, 2001), precordial pain (Apr. 3, 2001), and "dizziness and giddiness" (Sept. 14, 2000).
Yanez claims by sworn affidavit that his incomplete response to Interrogatory 17 was due to his understanding that the question was "asking for any prior treatment related to the same injuries sustained in the incident involving American [sic] Airlines" and claims that "based on my understanding of this question, my answer was truthful." Pla.'s Opp. Def.'s Mot., at Aff. 2.
The Court finds Plaintiff's explanation of his understanding of Interrogatory 17 lacks credibility. The question itself is straightforward and on its face renders preposterous Yanez's claim. It defies logic to transform an inquiry as to all health care providers within ten years prior to July 1, 2001 into a nonsensical inquiry about those who treated Yanez prior to July 1, 2001 for an injury that he had not yet sustained.
The Court further notes that if Plaintiff had truthfully responded he would, at least, have provided information regarding treatment for various matters during the 18-month period prior to the Beverage Cart Incident, which America West learned from CIGNA HealthCare. This information would have been relevant to the evaluation of the extent of injuries caused by the Beverage Cart Incident.
Request for Production of Documents, Request No. 8 requests "All medical records reflecting examination, consultation, diagnosis, or treatment of or with you at any time for any reason that have not heretofore been provided by you in this lawsuit. This request is intended to encompass such records whether or not they are for examination, consultation, diagnosis, or treatment related to the injury you allege you incurred on July 1, 2000."
Plaintiffs' failure to provide a true response to Interrogatory 17 was deliberate and a further part of his fraudulent scheme.
E. Misleading Response to Interrogatory on Medical Treatment for Knees
In Interrogatory 16, Yanez was asked to:
"Identify all medical doctors, osteopaths, chiropractors, or other practitioners of the medical arts who have ever examined, conducted studies of, diagnosed, consulted with you concerning, or treated your left or right knee." Interrog. of Yanez, 16.
Plaintiff responded that "Dr. Joseph Mullens examined plaintiff's right knee 28 years ago. Dr. Ira Cantan examined a sprain in plaintiff's left knee 20 years ago." Id. America West uncovered medical reports that indicate that Dr. Ira Cantan ("Dr. Cantan") in fact had performed arthroscopic surgery on the knee, a fact that Yanez later alluded to during his sworn deposition. Dep. of Yanez, 127-128. Yanez has produced no records of this surgery, despite Defendant's request for production of Plaintiff's medical records.
Yanez claims by sworn affidavit that when he answered the interrogatory, "it was my understanding that my answer was and is true" and states: "I thought I answered more than asked." Pla.'s Opp. Def.'s Mot., at Aff. 2.
The Court finds that Yanez's answer was misleading precisely because it went beyond simply "identifying" Dr. Cantan as requested and indicated that Dr. Cantan had "examined a sprain" so as to hide the serious nature of the treatment that would have been relevant to the extent of injuries caused by the Beverage Cart Incident.
F. False Denial of Missing Work
Yanez lied during his deposition when he testified that he had not missed any work for injury or sickness since the beginning of 2000 other than what he missed because of his knee injury. Dep. of Yanez at 165-166. America West has produced Plaintiff's federal Employee's Claim for Compensation, filed in December 2003 for the Workplace Injury, on which Plaintiff checked the "yes" box to answer the question "Did injury cause loss of time beyond day or shift of accident?".
Yanez argues generally that the Worker's Compensation claim form is "totally unrelated to the injury to Yanez's left knee." Pl.'s Opp. to Def.'s Mot, at 4. As to whether Yanez indicated on the worker's compensation form that he missed work for this Workplace Injury in contradiction to his sworn deposition testimony, Yanez draws the Court's attention to the fact that there were numerous boxes on the form that dealt with the loss of time due to work injury and that although he did check the box to indicate that the injury caused loss of time beyond the date or shift of the injury, he checked another box indicating that his pay never stopped and checked yet another box indicating that he worked throughout the pain. Id.
Yanez has limited his explanation to pointing to a series of boxes on the form and relying on the Court to draw whatever inferences may be there, rather than explain how his denial of missing work during his deposition testimony can be squared with his affirmative response to the same question on the Employee's Claim for Compensation form.
Plaintiff claims that "the Worker's Compensation form is totally unrelated to the injury to Yanez's left knee." Id. That may or not be correct; however, the point is that the information requested could be material to a determination of the extent of the damages to which Plaintiff would be entitled. Moreover, what is most critical is the undeniable fact that the false answer about missing work is an essential part of the fraudulent scheme. A true answer would, undoubtedly, have led to disclosure of the Workplace Injury and thus to the separate treatment device used to inflate damages.
G. Finding of Fraud
Defendant has moved for dismissal of the Complaint because Plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court.
A "fraud on the court" occurs where a party has engaged in the litigation process in a manner that intentionally prevents the court from impartially adjudicating the claim, as by impeding its opponent from accessing information relevant to its claim or defense. See e.g., Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118; Pfizer, Inc. v. Int'l Rectifier Corp., 538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir. 1976);England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. 1960). "Because corrupt intent knows no stylistic boundaries, fraud on the court can take many forms." Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1117.
As discussed above, Yanez has engaged in a comprehensive fraudulent scheme, including providing intentionally false deposition testimony and deliberately failing to meet discovery obligations to hide evidence of obvious high relevance to his claim for damages from Defendant. The extent and nature of his fraud goes beyond that which should be tolerated. In sum the Court concludes that America West has established, by evidence the Court finds to be clear and convincing, that dismissal is the proper sanction to impose in the instant case.
Indeed, the evidence persuades the Court beyond a reasonable doubt that Yanez sought to perpetrate a fraud on all concerned, including the Defendant, his treating physicians (who were not made aware of his true medical history and contemporaneous treatments), his own counsel and the Court.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
2. Judgment shall be entered by separate Order.
SO ORDERED.