Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richardson v. A. A. Podiatry, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    The document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Lenir Richardson against various medical providers. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Richardson's complaint without prejudice. Specifically, the court found that Richardson failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a) because she did not allege any harm from the alleged violations. The court also determined that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Richardson's remaining state law tort claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-01-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-2277

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Lenir Richardson against various medical providers. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Richardson's complaint without prejudice. Specifically, the court found that Richardson failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a) because she did not allege any harm from the alleged violations. The court also determined that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Richardson's remaining state law tort claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views3 pages

    Richardson v. A. A. Podiatry, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Lenir Richardson against various medical providers. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Richardson's complaint without prejudice. Specifically, the court found that Richardson failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a) because she did not allege any harm from the alleged violations. The court also determined that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Richardson's remaining state law tort claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-2277

    LENIR RICHARDSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    A. A. PODIATRY, P.L.L.C.; DOCTOR ADMASON,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    RAFIK MUWWAD, M.D.; INOVA FAIRFAX HOSPITAL;
    INOVA ALEXANDRIA HOSPITAL; BLUE CROSS & BLUE
    SHIELD ASSOCIATION; MEDICAID,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
    Judge. (CA-05-1155)

    Submitted:

    January 19, 2006

    Decided:

    January 24, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Winston Boone, Sr.,


    BOONE & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Lenir

    Richardson

    appeals

    district

    dismissing without prejudice her complaint.

    court

    order

    Insofar as Richardson

    raised a claim against two hospitals under 42 U.S.C. 1395dd(a)


    (2000), we find Richardson failed to state a claim because she
    failed to allege the harm suffered as a result of the alleged
    violations of 1395dd(a).

    With respect to the remainder of her

    claims, which were torts controlled by state law, the district


    court did not have jurisdiction.

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    We

    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like