Opinion
No. 4:04CV00112.
February 23, 2004
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Pending are Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order or alternatively for preliminary injunctive relief, docket # 4 and Defendant's motion to dismiss or strike, docket # 7. Following a hearing held February 19, 2004 and after review of the parties pleadings, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' case. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. All remaining motions are denied as moot.
Standard of Review
A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court must analyze the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction as provided under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unlike analysis under Rule 12(b)(6), Rule 12(b)(1) allows the Court to consider matters outside of the pleadings.
[H]ere the trial court may proceed as it never could under 12(b)(6) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Because at issue in a factual 12(b)(1) motion is the trial court's jurisdiction — its very power to hear the case — there is substantial authority that the trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case. In short, no presumptive truthfulness attaches to the plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.Osborn v. U.S., 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977)).
Discussion
On February 2, 2004, Baptist Health notified Dr. Scott L. Beau that an economic conflict exists which will result in the automatic termination of his professional staff privileges at the end of his current appointment. On the same day, Baptist Health notified Dr. Bruce E. Murphy that his failure to sign an agreement to be bound by Baptist Health's Economic Credentialing Policy and to disclose any ownership or investment in a competing hospital would cause his request for reappointment to be incomplete, resulting in the automatic termination of his staff privileges on February 26, 2004.
Plaintiffs argue that the actions of Baptist Health violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b); the Arkansas Medicaid Fraud Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-55-111; the Arkansas Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 20-77-902; the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101 et. seq. and tortiously interfere with the doctor and patient relationship.
Plaintiffs concede that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b) does not create a private right of action for violations of the statute. Plaintiffs argue that federal jurisdiction is appropriate because a "substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded state claims." See, Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,13 (1983). Plaintiffs claim that the causes of action asserted against Baptist Health create a substantial question of federal law, i.e., whether the acts and motivations of Economic Credentialing violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The question posed by plaintiffs is a factual question related to the intent of Baptist Health, a question of fact, not of law.
Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a plaintiff's "well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 27-28. "[T]he mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction." Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 813 (1986). The Court finds that Plaintiffs' right to relief under state law is not based on a resolution of a question of disputed federal law. Arkansas law does not require a determination of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in order for Plaintiffs to prevail on any of the state law claims asserted. Plaintiffs' complaint does not raise a substantial question of federal law and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), all state claims are dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
For these reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, docket # 7, is granted. All remaining motions are denied as moot.
IS SO ORDERED.