Richard Hyatt v. Village House Convalescent Home, Inc.,et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supreme Court
No. 2004-25-Appeal.
(NC 03-394)
Richard Hyatt
:
v.
:
Village House Convalescent Home, Inc.,
et al.
:
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before
publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to
notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250
Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 2223258 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that
corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court
No. 2004-25-Appeal.
(NC 03-394)
Richard Hyatt
:
v.
:
Village House Convalescent Home, Inc.,
et al.
:
Present: Williams, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Suttell, and Robinson, JJ.
OPINION
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Richard Hyatt, appeals from a Superior Court judgment
in favor of the defendant, Norman Rudolph, M.D., which judgment was entered after the
Superior Court granted Dr. Rudolph’s Super.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s
complaint to the extent that it related to him.1 This case came before the Supreme Court for oral
argument on March 1, 2005, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause
why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.
After hearing the
arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the
opinion that cause has not been shown and that this case should be summarily decided.
1
The plaintiff filed an appeal with this Court after defendant’s motion to dismiss was
granted but before judgment was entered. After a prebriefing conference, we remanded the case
to the Superior Court for consideration and determination of a motion for entry of judgment
pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. That motion was granted
by the Superior Court, and a Rule 54(b) judgment in defendant Dr. Rudolph’s favor was entered
on June 8, 2004. The case was then returned to this Court for further proceedings on appeal.
-1-
Facts and Travel
Since this is an appeal from the granting of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we rely on the
allegations set forth in plaintiff’s complaint and we accept them as true at this juncture.
On August 15, 2002, plaintiff was employed as a registered nurse at Village House
Convalescent Home, Inc. (Village House). On that evening, a fellow nurse, Geraldine Gerardi,
asked plaintiff to assist her with an uncooperative patient. (The patient was refusing to allow the
nurse to remove a lidoderm patch.) The plaintiff alleges that he suggested that nurse Gerardi
contact defendant Dr. Rudolph, the medical director of Village House, to ask how they should
deal with the patient. Nurse Gerardi spoke with Dr. Rudolph, who instructed her to contact the
pharmacist to obtain information about the lidoderm patch. The plaintiff alleges that nurse
Gerardi contacted the pharmacist and was told to remove the patch as soon as possible. Upon
reading some pharmaceutical information pertaining to the patch, plaintiff helped nurse Gerardi
remove the patch. According to the complaint, Village House “by and through its agents and/or
servants” reported the patch incident to the Board of Nursing, which ultimately found that
plaintiff had not engaged in unprofessional conduct.
The plaintiff was later terminated from his position at Village House allegedly as a result
of the August 15, 2002 incident and was subsequently unable to secure employment at another
nursing facility. On July 15, 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Newport
County, naming as defendants Village House, Dr. Rudolph, and three other people.
The
complaint consisted of five counts -- viz., defamation (count 1), breach of contract (count 2),
wrongful termination (count 3), intentional interference with contract and prospective economic
relations (count 4), and malicious institution of civil proceedings (count 5).
-2-
On August 26, 2003, defendant Dr. Rudolph filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), contending that plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. The defendant argued that his involvement in the case, according to
the factual allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, was limited to his receipt of a phone call from
nurse Gerardi and his suggestion that she speak to the pharmacist. The motion justice concluded
that plaintiff’s complaint did not contain any factual allegations to support any cause of action
against Dr. Rudolph, and therefore, the motion justice dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as it
pertained to Dr. Rudolph.
Standard of Review
We need not comment at the present juncture on the substance of plaintiff’s complaint;2
Rule 12(b)(6) does not deal with the likelihood of success on the merits, but rather with the
viability of a plaintiff’s bare-bones allegations and claims as they are set forth in the complaint.3
Accordingly, we shall analyze each of the counts in plaintiff’s complaint in light of the notably
lenient standards of our Rule12(b)(6) jurisprudence. Under those standards, it must be assumed
that the allegations in the complaint are true. Estate of Sherman v. Almeida, 747 A.2d 470, 473
2
We express our displeasure with the carelessly drafted nature of the complaint. As just
one example (among many) of that carelessness, we note that count 1 fails to make it clear which
defendant(s) allegedly defamed plaintiff. At several junctures, the complaint in this case comes
perilously close to not giving the various defendants fair and adequate notice of what is alleged.
See Butera v. Boucher, 798 A.2d 340, 353 (R.I. 2002). It is a fundamental principle that all
parties in litigation have a due process right to fair and adequate notice.
3
Although we are reversing the motion to dismiss with respect to certain counts in the
complaint, we wish to observe that, in addition to discovery, this defendant will of course be free
to utilize, as appropriate, the dispositive mechanisms of such rules as Rule 50 and Rule 56 of the
Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure as this case proceeds.
By the same token, in view of the very imprecise nature of several of the allegations in
the complaint, we caution plaintiff’s counsel to take great care with respect to accuracy as he
pursues this litigation.
-3-
(R.I. 2000).4 Further, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to be granted unless the defendant can
establish that plaintiff has no entitlement to relief. Estate of Sherman, 747 A.2d at 473; Gagnon
v. State, 570 A.2d 656, 657 (R.I. 1990). As we stated in Hendrick v. Hendrick, 755 A.2d 784
(R.I. 2000): “A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will only be granted ‘when it is clear
beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief from the defendant
under any set of facts that could be proven in support of the plaintiff’s claim.’” Hendrick, 755
A.2d at 793 (quoting Bruno v. Criterion Holdings, Inc., 736 A.2d 99, 99 (R.I. 1999) and Folan v.
State, 723 A.2d 287, 289 (R.I. 1999)); see also Ellis v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority,
586 A.2d 1055, 1057 (R.I. 1991).
Under our Rule 12(b)(6) jurisprudence, before such a motion may be granted, the trial
justice must find “beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove his right to
relief, * * * that is to say, unless it appears to a certainty that he will not be entitled to relief
under any set of facts which might be proved in support of his claim.” Bragg v. Warwick
Shoppers World, Inc., 102 R.I. 8, 12, 227 A.2d 582, 584 (1967).
Moreover, in most instances, one drafting a compliant in a civil action is not required to
draft the pleading with a high degree of factual specificity.5 Id. That is not to say, however, that
the drafter of a complaint has no responsibilities with respect to providing some degree of clarity
as to what is alleged; due process considerations are implicated, and we require that “the
4
We stated in Salvadore v. Major Electric & Supply, Inc., 469 A.2d 353 (R.I. 1983) that
“[i]f there is any doubt about the sufficiency of the complaint, we construe it ‘in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff with all doubts resolved in his favor and the allegations accepted as
true.’” Id. at 357 (quoting Bragg v. Warwick Shoppers World, Inc., 102 R.I. 8, 12, 227 A.2d
582, 584 (1967)).
5
There are some occasions when particularity is required in pleadings. See, e.g., Rule 9(b)
of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure (“In all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.”).
-4-
complaint give the opposing party fair and adequate notice of the type of claim being asserted.”
Butera v. Boucher, 798 A.2d 340, 353 (R.I. 2002) (emphasis added.)
Analysis
We now proceed to apply those standards to the case at bar.
In our judgment, count 1 (alleging defamation) should have survived the Rule 12(b)(6)
ax, although just barely. The allegations in this count indicate, albeit opaquely, that one or more
of the individual defendants may have defamed plaintiff. Conceivably, plaintiff has a good-faith
basis for alleging that defendant defamed him.
(This is a matter which carefully focused
discovery should be able to clarify rather quickly.)
Count 2 (which alleges that “Defendant breached it’s [sic] legally implied promise to
treat employees fairly”) was properly dismissed. By any fair reading, this count is directed only
to Village House. The complaint states that plaintiff “was employed at [Village] House as a
Registered Nurse * * *.” There is no allegation that defendant Dr. Rudolph was a party to any
contractual relationship with plaintiff, and therefore he should not be a defendant under this
count -- even if it otherwise states a cause of action.6
Count 3 (entitled “Wrongful Termination”) was properly dismissed. The complaint
specifically alleges that plaintiff “was working at [Village] House on the evening of August 15,
2002.” There is no allegation that there was any employment relationship between plaintiff and
defendant Dr. Rudolph, and therefore he should not be a defendant under this count -- even if it
otherwise states a cause of action.
6
But see Galloway v. Roger Williams University, 777 A.2d 148, 150 (R.I. 2001); Pacheco
v. Raytheon Co., 623 A.2d 464, 465 (R.I. 1993).
-5-
Count 4 (entitled “Intentional Interference with Contract and Prospective Economic
Relations”) should not have been dismissed. It alleges (albeit just barely) that the “agents and/or
servants” of Village House actually committed the intentional tort that is the subject of this
count.
Count 5 was properly dismissed. In this instance, the pleader has explicitly alleged that
the “Defendant [Village] House” initiated the civil proceedings that he contends were
maliciously instituted.7 This count cannot fairly be read as alleging that the defendant Dr.
Rudolph instituted the civil proceedings in question.
Conclusion
For these reasons, we affirm the dismissal of counts 2, 3, and 5 of the complaint, but we
remand the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings with respect to counts 1 and 4.
The record may be returned to the Superior Court.
7
The plaintiff alleges in count 5 that the civil proceedings were maliciously instituted by
Village House “by and through its agents and/or servants * * *.” The plaintiff does not allege,
however, that the “agents and/or servants” were anything more than passive conduits through
which the corporate entity caused the civil proceedings to be instituted. (The allegations in count
5 are to be contrasted with those in count 4. It is alleged in count 4 that Village House or its
agents and/or servants actually made “direct statements” that resulted in plaintiff’s not obtaining
employment with another entity. Count 5, by contrast, simply alleges that the agents and/or
servants were instrumentalities “by and through” whom the subject report to the Board of
Nursing was made.)
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.