GREEN-LEE v. JC LINCOLN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MARILEE ELSA GREEN-LEE, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) JOHN C. LINCOLN HEALTH NETWORK ) dba JOHN C. LINCOLN HOSPITAL, ) ) Defendant/Appellee. ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CV 12-0112 DIVISION ONE FILED: 11/06/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CV2011-010321 The Honorable Robert H. Oberbillig, Judge AFFIRMED Marilee Elsa Green-Lee, In Propria Persona Olson, Jantsch & Bakker, P.A. By Andrew E. Rosenzweig And Dina Anagnopoulos Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Goodyear Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 Marilee Elsa Green-Lee (Green-Lee) appeals the trial court s grant of summary judgment in favor of John C. Lincoln Health Network dba John C. Lincoln Hospital (Hospital). reasons that follow, we affirm. For the FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Green-Lee was driving her Ford pick-up truck when she collided with a bus stop and ran into two bystanders, killing one of them, in 2009. She admitted to police that she had taken Aterol and Percocet and that she had taken methamphetamine the day before. Phoenix police requested a search warrant to obtain Green-Lee s blood. A superior court judge determined that there was probable cause and issued the search warrant. The police transported Green-Lee to Hospital where a nurse drew her blood using the blood kit provided by the police, and turned over the vials to the police. Green-Lee was convicted of manslaughter and possession of dangerous drugs for sale. She is currently imprisoned. ¶3 Green-Lee filed a civil complaint in superior court requesting two hundred million dollars in compensatory damages and two hundred million dollars in Hospital s role in her convictions. partial summary cross-motion judgment for summary and filed The We have jurisdiction pursuant a trial Hospital s cross-motion for summary judgment. appealed. damages for She filed a motion for Hospital judgment. punitive to response court and granted Green-Lee timely Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2011). DISCUSSION ¶4 Summary judgment is appropriate 2 when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 56(c)(1). Ariz. R. Civ. P. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Chalpin v. Synder, 220 Ariz. 413, 418, ¶ 17, 207 P.3d 666, 671 (App. 2008) (citation omitted). judgment should only be granted if the facts Summary produced in support of [a] claim . . . have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim. . . . Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990). ¶5 The facts are not in dispute. Hospital drew Green- Lee s blood pursuant to a valid search warrant after she was involved in a fatal car accident. Lee argues that Hospital was In her opening brief, Greennot a party to the search warrant, and therefore the nurse who drew her blood was not authorized to do so. Green-Lee cites no legal authority in supporting any claim for relief against Hospital as required by Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 13(a)(6). The trial court found that hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Green-Lee had no private right of action under 3 the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA)1, nor did she present any other valid claim for relief in her complaint. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Green-Lee, there is no basis to reverse the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Hospital. CONCLUSION ¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hospital. /s/ ___________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge See Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007) (no private right of action exists under HIPAA). 1 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.