Williams v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., No. 3:2016cv00236 - Document 96 (W.D. Ky. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 4/10/2018: Williams' motion 90 for leave to file a sur-reply will be granted. An order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum. cc: counsel (JM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. Doc. 96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00236-CRS BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a BAPTIST HEALTH LEXINGTON DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves a dispute between plaintiff William H. Williams (“Williams”) and defendant Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. d/b/a Baptist Health Lexington (“BHL”) arising from BHL’s failure to admit Williams for care on April 4, 2015. ECF No. 1-1, p. 2. BHL moved for summary judgment, Williams responded, and BHL subsequently replied. ECF Nos. 76, 84, 88. Now, Williams moves to strike portions of BHL’s reply, or alternatively, moves for leave to file a sur-reply. ECF No. 90. For the reasons set forth below, Williams’ motion for leave to file a surreply will be granted. Williams argues that BHL raised the following arguments for the first time in its reply brief: (1) (2) (3) (4) Williams’ emotional distress claim should be dismissed because there is no medical expert opinion testimony linking Williams’ symptoms of anxiety to his rejection by BHL; Williams’ emotional distress claim should be dismissed because a medical expert is required to opine on emotional distress damages; Williams’ emotional distress claim should be dismissed because emotional distress damages may only be awarded where a plaintiff establishes distress affecting everyday life and requires significant treatment; and Williams’ punitive damages claim should be dismissed because compensable damages are necessary before a party may recover punitive damages in an EMTALA case. 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Sixth Circuit has held that “[a]lthough the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly permit the filing of sur-replies, such filings may be allowed in the appropriate circumstances, especially ‘[w]hen new submissions and/or arguments are included in a reply brief, and a nonmovant’s ability to respond to the new evidence has been vitiated.’” Key v. Shelby County, 551 Fed. Appx. 262, 265 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Seay v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 339 F.3d 454, 481 (6th Cir. 2003)). In the present case, BHL made qualitatively different arguments concerning emotional distress injuries and punitive damages in the motion for summary judgment and the reply brief. Thus, the court will allow Williams to file a sur-reply addressing solely these two issues. The sur-reply shall be filed no later than April 23, 2018. For the reasons stated above, Williams’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply will be granted. An order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum. April 10, 2018 C al R Smpo I , ei J d e h r s . i sn I Sno u g e I r U i dSae Ds i C ut nt tt ir t o r e s tc 2
]]>
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.
