MIAMI – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied a U.S. government motion to dismiss suit filed by an Air Force veteran claiming unlawful imprisonment and negligence.
U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, in her Oct. 12 decision, rejected the government's argument that the plaintiff, Thuan Viet Doan, failed to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied the motion to dismiss.
Doan served in the Air Force from September 1993 through the following February. He claimed in his suit that he was involuntarily detained at the Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VAMC) after a Compensation & Pension evaluation in 2017.
During the evaluation, Doan refused to follow the examiner’s suggestion to go to the emergency department, court filings said. The examiner then let Doan know she’d do an involuntary examination via Florida’s Mental Health Act. Veterans Affairs officers subsequently took Doan into custody.
Doan then sued claiming the U.S. violated the Federal Tort Claims Act. He said the examination and confinement were illegal because Miami VAMC didn’t follow policies under the Baker Act, which states a person “believed to have a mental illness may be involuntarily committed and examined,” according to the lawsuit. The suit claims false imprisonment by VA officers and the emergency department physician and negligence by the emergency department physician.
The court pointed out that while the woman who examined Doan obeyed the Baker Act requirements concerning a certificate of professional, the involuntarily examination as a whole didn’t comply with the regulation since VA police officers who took Doan into custody weren’t seen as actual “law enforcement officers” in the interpretation of the Baker Act. Since the VA officers technically weren’t allowed to take Doan into custody, the arrest did not comply with the Baker Act, and Doan provided a plausible claim for false imprisonment.
Tthe court added that Doan properly accused Miami VAMC of not being a designated Baker Act facility, and therefore the emergency department doesn’t follow the regulation’s requirements. Considering this, the plaintiff appropriately stated a claim for this as well.
Regarding the negligence claim, the court determined even though the lawsuit doesn’t specifically plead all of the factors of negligence, Doan sufficiently accused the defendant of infringing on his rights in the Baker Act. Considering this, the U.S. motion to dismiss was denied.