United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Joshua Prieur, Plaintiff: Marshall D. Lasser, Southfield, MI.
Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant: Kathleen H.
Klaus, Maddin, Hauser, Southfield, MI.
AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
LINDA V. PARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
diversity jurisdiction action arises from Plaintiff's
claim for Michigan workers' compensation benefits and
Defendant's request during the processing of the claim
that Plaintiff attend an independent medical examination
(" IME" ). In his Complaint,
filed July 17, 2015, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant twice
committed the tort of false imprisonment by requiring him to
attend an IME or risk losing his workers' compensation
benefits. Presently before the Court is
Defendant's motion to dismiss, filed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on August 13, 2015. The
motion has been fully briefed. The Court finds the facts and
legal arguments sufficiently presented in the parties'
pleadings and therefore is dispensing with oral argument
pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f).
For the reasons that follow, the Court is granting
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal
sufficiency of the complaint. RMI Titanium Co. v.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir.
1996). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a
pleading must contain a " short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief." To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
need not contain " detailed factual allegations,"
but it must contain more than " labels and
conclusions" or " a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action . . .." Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) . A complaint does not " suffice if
it tenders 'naked assertions' devoid of 'further
factual enhancement.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Supreme Court provided in Iqbal and
Twombly, " [t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). " A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility standard
" does not impose a probability requirement at the
pleading stage; it simply calls for enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of
illegal [conduct]." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
deciding whether the plaintiff has set forth a "
plausible" claim, the court must accept the factual
allegations in the complaint as true. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d
1081 (2007). This presumption, however, is not applicable to
legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 668.
Therefore, " [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555).
to Plaintiff's Complaint, he suffered traumatic brain
injury in a work-related accident and his employer was
insured for Michigan workers' compensation benefits by
Defendant. (ECF No. 1 ¶ ¶ 2, 3.) Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant sent letters to Plaintiff on October 8, 2013
and November 13, 2013, requesting that he submit to an
examination by psychologist Dr. Rhonda Levy-Larson on
November 13 and 26, 2013. ( Id. ¶ 6.) The
letters advised Plaintiff: " Your failure to appear for
this examination could substantially affect your right to
workers' compensation benefits." ( Id. )
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant routinely uses such language
when requesting that claimants undergo examinations. (
Id. ¶ 5.)
Workers' Disability Compensation Act provides that if a
claimant refuses to submit to or obstructs an employer's
or carrier's requested examination of the claimant by a
physician or surgeon, the claimant's right to
compensation will be suspended and, during the period of
suspension, may be forfeited. Mich. Comp. Laws §
418.385. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Levy-Larson ...