Opinion
No. 88 C 6658.
February 16, 1989
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the court on the motion of defendants, St. Elizabeth Hospital ("St. Elizabeth") and Ancilla Systems, Inc., to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for injunctive relief and damages. For the reasons herein stated, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 4, 1988 alleging that he was improperly transferred by St. Elizabeth's in violation of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, also known as COBRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd et seq. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, an injunction requiring the hospital to comply with COBRA, and punitive damages. COBRA requires hospitals participating in Medicare to treat indigent patients for emergency medical conditions regardless of their inability to pay. The law provides that a hospital may transfer such a patient only if the patient requests to be transferred, has been stabilized, or it is determined that other facilities are necessary to treat the patient's needs.
Defendants' first argument is that plaintiff has demonstrated no case or controversy with regard to its claim for injunctive relief and therefore he has no standing to bring it. Defendants maintain that plaintiff is entitled to an injunction only if he can show that he will be subject to some future injury if the violations continue, namely, that he would be subject to future transfers from the emergency room at St. Elizabeth's in an unstable condition because he has no medical insurance.
The requirement of standing focuses on the party seeking to get his or her claim before a district court and not on the issues to be adjudicated. Essentially the standing question is whether the Constitution or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in plaintiff's position a right to relief. Warth v. Seldin, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2206 (1975). COBRA specifically provides that "any individual who suffers personal harm as a result of a violation of the statute may, along with damages, obtain such equitable relief as is appropriate. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(3)(A). Accordingly, plaintiff has standing to bring this claim.
Generally a plaintiff must demonstrate several factors before an injunction will issue. They are (1) that there is no adequate remedy at law or that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, (2) plaintiff would suffer greater harm if it is not granted than the defendant will suffer if the injunction is granted, (3) that the plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, and (4) the injunction will not harm the public interest. Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 716 (7th Cir. 1988). Defendants maintain that plaintiff can prove neither irreparable injury or that he has no adequate remedy at law.
The Seventh Circuit has held that although under traditional principles of equity a plaintiff must prove that he or she will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, where the plaintiff seeks an injunction to prevent the violation of a federal statute that specifically provides for injunctive relief he or she need not show irreparable harm. IBT v. ICC, 740 F.2d 566, 571 (7th Cir. 1984). Here the federal statute specifically provides for an injunction and accordingly plaintiff need not prove irreparable harm.
Finally, defendants contend that plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages. COBRA provides that an individual who suffers harm as a result of COBRA violations may obtain against the participating hospital those damages available for personal injury under the laws of the state in which the hospital is located. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. As St. Elizabeth's is located in Illinois, Illinois law governs the availability of punitive damages. Illinois law provides that punitive damages are not recoverable in healing art and legal malpractice cases. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, § 2-1115. Plaintiff contends that this is not a malpractice claim but rather one for a violation of a statute which provides its own basis for relief.
The court sees no merit in plaintiff's argument. The only claim plaintiff could have against defendants under the law of Illinois is for medical malpractice which is barred by Illinois statute. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for punitive damages is dismissed.
For the reasons herein stated, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.