Carl E. Watson sued Optum Headquarters in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Optum moved to dismiss Watson’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Watson, a veteran with Intervertebral Disc Syndrome (IVDS), alleged that Optum, a VA contractor, discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability regarding an appointment scheduled in October 2023. Watson claimed he requested a later appointment time but was given a morning appointment. He attempted to reschedule by emailing various Optum addresses but was unsuccessful. Watson asserted that Optum’s conduct violated the ADA and HIPAA.
The complaint was filed on February 6, 2024, against Optum, Heather Ciafrocco, Christ Zaetta, and the Veterans Administration. However, only Optum was served within the required 90-day period.
Legal Analysis
ADA Claim: The court analyzed Watson’s claim under Title III of the ADA, as Optum was neither Watson’s employer nor a government entity. To establish a Title III claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) they are disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff within the meaning of the ADA.
The court found that Watson failed to sufficiently allege any of these elements. Specifically, Watson did not adequately establish his disability status, demonstrate that Optum operated a place of public accommodation, or provide facts supporting discrimination based on his disability. The court noted that Watson’s communication issues with Optum appeared to stem from using incorrect email addresses rather than any discriminatory intent.
HIPAA Claim: The court dismissed Watson’s HIPAA claim, stating that HIPAA does not create a private right of action.
Remaining Defendants: Magistrate Judge Birzer recommended dismissal of the complaint against the remaining defendants (Ciafrocco, Zaetta, and the VA) for lack of prosecution, as Watson failed to serve them within 90 days as required by Rule 4(m) and did not respond to a show cause order.
The court granted Optum’s motion to dismiss, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the remaining defendants without prejudice, and dismissed Watson’s ADA and HIPAA claims against Optum.
Schrag on Law 