Petition for Rehearing — Isabella Nartey, Petitioner v. Franciscan Health Hospital

No. 21-1353

FILED

JUN 27 2022

Supreme Court of the Anited States

>

ISABELLA NARTEY,

Petitioner, PRO SE,

Vv.

FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE d/b/a FRANCISCAN

HEALTH HOSPITAL OF OLYMPIA FIELDS,

Respondent.

>

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Seventh Circuit

4

PETITION FOR REHEARING

eo

ISABELLA NARTEY

Pro Se

5707 South Cass Ave., Unit 41

Westmont, IL 60559

(312) 725-3534

ms.isabella.nartey@gmail.com

RECEIVED

JUL 19 2022

CE OF THE CLERK

QuPREME COURT, U.S.

ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The Petitioner is Isabella Nartey, a non-attorney who

was Plaintiff-Appellant PRO SE below (“Nartey”). Nartey asserts claims on behalf of herself via her standing

as a private individual with statutorily protected traits

damaged by undisputed adverse acts of exclusion, delay, and substandard transfer accommodations alleged

to violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

The Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act.

The Respondent is corporation Franciscan Alliance

d/b/a Franciscan Health Hospital of Olympia Fields,

who was Defendant-Appellee below (“Franciscan”).

Franciscan receives Medicare funds; maintains at

least one written transfer agreement with guaranteed

beds; and gains additional federal dollars for stroke

care based on Franciscan’s licensing under 210 ILCS

50/3.117 as an acute stroke ready hospital in Cook

County, Illinois.

Iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) ................ 9

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing

Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977)......cccccescsseccsssssssssscecessues 10

Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Rev., 596

US. ___ (2022) (9-0, No. 20-1472 US. Apr. 21,

2022) scacccascevesercveteceaeviswesasiiewiis.»...000- 1, 12, 13,14, 15

Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020)......... 6

Brooks v. Cty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cty., 446 F.3d

1160 (11th Cir. 2006) 20.0... cc ccecceeecceeeeeccecneeeees 7

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483

(1954)... .ceeccsesssssscccsesccsesceees rover dotusansneugeuseunnma causes 5,6

Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017)... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 16

Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677,

99 S.Ct. 1946 (1979) scessasccsspassssassisapaccecseconeersseeeeneoes 3

FCC v. AT&T, 562 U.S. 897 (2011) .....eeccecccccceseeseeeeee 10

Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S.Ct. 2228 (2019).............. 6

Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) ........0.. 11, 12,16

Frazier v. Bd. of Trustees, 765 F.2d 1278,

amended, 777 F.2d 329 (5th Cir. 1985)..........ccccc0e 6

Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (8d Cir. 1994).............. 7

Healthy Futures of Tex. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 315 F.Supp.3d 399 (D.C. Cir. 2018)....... 11

Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., 595 U.S. ___ (2022)

(9-0, No.19-1401 US. Jan. 24, 2022)....... 1, 4,5, 6, 10

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

USS. Const. Amend. IV o....... cece eeeceeeseeeeeeeeesseeseseeseeeeeeens 4

STATUTES

28-U.S.C.-§-1367 occcecccccseeseeeseeceenseeeeeseeseneeenseeeeaseeeeeenss 3

42-U.S.C.-§-1395dd 20... eecceescceessssesseesseeeeeeeeeeeessanaeeeees 3

42-U.S.C.-§-1395dd(c)(1)(A)G)....c cee ceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennees 10

42-U,.S.C.-§-1395dd(d)(Q)(A)........cccecessseecesessecceeeessreeeeens 9

42-U.S.C.-§-1395dd(e)(3 )(A-B) oo... cceeeeseeeesseetsteeeetereeees 10

42-U.S.C.-§-20000 o....cccececcccseeceeeeeeeeesteeeeeesseeeeeeees 3,4,9

Civil Rights Act (1964) cssssvssssscsssncassenscnusacssanueavwossavs 4,5

RULES AND REGULATIONS

28-C.FR.-§-42.104(D)(1) oo. eceeeceeeceeeseesseeeeeesneeeeeeessneeees 4

28-C.F.R.-§-42.104(b)(2) oo... cceecccceccceeseeseneeeeseeeeeeseeaes 5

28-C.F.R.-§-42.107( ©) scasssussnvevavevsncovsenecsanvvavosssuswevsavecases 9

FRCP 8(e)(2) ssssascesssennsasspeisencnseesd sass vesdnsneexecacpuscosnaases 16

FRCP 15 oo eeessccccsesseceesssteccerteeseessssneeeeas 3,12, 14,15

FRCP 15(€) .....ceescccccesssseceessetsececceeeteesceneeeeesseseeeesesseeees 15

ERCP 52 oc eecccccccccesssscneececeeeeceeeeeeeeceeesesnnsaeeneeeeees 3,12

FRCP 60(b).........c:ccccessssccessrsceeceeeeeeessseneesens 3, 12, 13, 14

FRCP 60(b)(1) scssscsssscsccnscssictesssacsscnsenve 11, 12, 13, 14, 16

FRCP 60(D)(6) .......eeeseessseesteeeeeeenteeeeeeenneeenneeeeenaveeseeaes 16

Vili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

American Heart Association News. Medical Xpress.

“Legacy of discrimination reflected in health

inequality.” February 2020. https://medical

xpress.com/news/2020-02-legacy-discrimination-

health-inequality. html ...........ccccceseeesseceeeseeeeeeees

American Hospital Association, https://www.aha.

org/fact-sheets/2022-05-25-fact-sheet-majorityhospital-payments-dependent-medicare-ormedicaid#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%2094%25

%200f%20hospitals, Medicare%20and%20

Medicaid%20inpatient%20dayS..........cccceseees

Bell SK, et al., “Frequency and Types of Patient-

Reported Errors in Electronic Health Record

Ambulatory Care Notes.” JAMA Netw Open.

2020;3(6): e205867. doi:10.1001/jamanetwork

OPON.2020.5867......ccccccccssesesssssrrrerecceceeeceeeeceseeses

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The

U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at

Tuskegee. https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/time-

Lime tm 2.00... ecccecceceseseesccevseceeccueececeuscceseceeceeseeens

Discrimination in the United States: Experiences of Latinos. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/

1475-6773 .13216 .cisssicsscsasscvensensnadvarenssasveceseeneeey

Federal Judicial Center Integrated Database.

January 1, 2000-December 31, 2019 filing

counts Figure 6. https:/Awww.uscourts.gov/news/

2021/02/11just-facts-trends-pro-se-civil-litigation-

2000-20 19#figures_MaP.....c.cecseccccceseserersoocnssnsoes

Page

1

PREAMBLE

“In a free government the security for civil rights

must be the same as that for religious rights.” (James

Madison, Federalist No. 51, 1788). Believing in that

founding principle and in Rule 44.2 of the Supreme

Court of the United States (“This Court”), non-attorney

Petitioner Isabella Nartey (“Nartey”) respectfully requests rehearing of the order filed May 31, 2022, denying certiorari to review the judgment of the Seventh

Circuit Court of Appeals (“Seventh Circuit”).

Unchecked, the Seventh Circuit sets dangerous

precedent that “choice” overrides statutory duty and

that case management supersedes procedural due process. Yet, This Court’s latest decisions create “intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect”

to invoke Rule 44.2 for this discrimination case:

(1) Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., 595 U.S. ___

(2022) (9-0, No.19-1401 US. Jan. 24, 2022).

(2) Boechler v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.,

596 U.S. ___ (2022) (9-0, No.20-1472 US.

Apr. 21, 2022).

(2) Kemp v. United States,596U.S.___ (2022)

(8-1, No.21-5726 U.S. June 18, 2022).

Though their publication dates prevented inclusion in

the original Petition, these three cases further justice

now. Hughes controls plausibility determinations

while Kemp and Boechler ensure due process when litigants seek discretionary relief.

+

3

Relevant Procedural History

The U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois (“District Court”) maintained jurisdiction over Nartey’s

timely civil action with jury demand under 42-U.S.C.-

§-2000d, 42-U.S.C.-§-1395dd, and 28-U.S.C.-§-1367. The

District Court granted Franciscan’s first motion to dismiss (App.p.16-25) and terminated the case to sanction

Nartey over mistakes made while amending claims.

(App.p.14-15). Nartey renewed her motion for leave to

amend using Rules 60(b), 60(d), 15, and 52 within 28

days of judgment; yet the District Court ordered Nartey appeal for any relief. (App.p.12-[order]; App.p.37-42-

[transcript]).

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. (App.1-11).

¢

REASONS FOR REHEARING

This Petition maintains national importance

though filed pro se: “[t]he award of individual relief to

a private litigant who has prosecuted her own suit is

not only sensible but is also fully consistent with-and

in some cases even necessary to-the orderly enforcement of the statute.” Cannon v. University of Chicago,

441 US. 677, 705-06, 99 S.Ct. 1946 (1979) (on civil

rights litigation). In the interests of justice, Nartey

submits substantial adjudicative facts, reviewable under FRCP 201(b)(c)(d), alongside the binding and intervening authorities which invoke Rule 44.2 for

rehearing.

5

Title VI-covered hospitals have fiduciary duties:

¢ While “determining the type of disposition,

services, financial aid, benefits, or facilities to

be provided under any such program.” 28-

C.F.R.-§-42.104(b)(2).

¢ When identifying “individuals to whom, or the

situations in which, such will be provided, . . .

an opportunity to participate in any such program.” Ud.)

e During interactions with “providers,” “observers,” “advisors,” or “volunteers.”2

Like in Hughes, the Seventh Circuit’s analysis of

Respondent’s fiduciary duty and liability turned on

choice. Citing no precedent, the Seventh Circuit relied

on choice to dismiss liability despite medical statistics showing Franciscan’s adverse acts mirrored racebased exclusion. (App.p.9). Race-based service creates

legal injury regardless of similarities between offerings. (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493-

494 (1954)).

Considering Brown, disparate treatment claims

require Hughes’ context-specific inquiry. Statutory violations occur when covered entities rely in part on

one’s protected trait when committing an adverse act.

2 National Library of Medicine Letter and materials about

hospital compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Explanation of the HEW FORM NO. 441, Assurance of Compliance with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Regulation Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. March 4, 1966.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/forallthepeople/img/2615.pdf.

7

and tangible way to the hospital’s claims for reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid.”

Contrary to the Seventh Circuit’s blind faith

(App.p.9-10), the Eleventh Circuit recognizes “inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions” reveal proffered reasons for adverse acts as “pretext.” Brooks v.

Cty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cty., 446 F.3d 1160, 1163

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jackson v. Ala. State Tenure Comm’n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir. 2005).

Similarly, the Third Circuit recognizes “proffered nondiscriminatory reasons” may be “a post hoc fabrication”

or factors which “otherwise did not actually motivate”

the prohibited act. Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 767

(3d Cir. 1994).

Given these splits, the Seventh Circuit sets dangerous precedent for federally-funded hospitals’ to

execute prohibited exclusion, delay, denial, and inequality with impunity. The medical community admits

race influences individual care decisions.‘ For example,

* The American Hospital Association reports “94% of hospitals have 50% of their inpatient days paid by Medicare and Medicaid.” https:/Avww.aha.org/fact-sheets/2022-05-25-fact-sheet-majorityhospital-payments-dependent-medicare-or-medicaid#:~:text=In%

20fact%2C%2094%25%200f% 20hospitals, Medicare%20and%20

Medicaid%20inpatient%20days.

* American Heart Association News. Medical Xpress. “Legacy of discrimination reflected in health inequality.” February

2020. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-02-legacy-discriminationhealth-inequality html.

9

of medical needs despite existing policies. Such racial

disparity fuels:

e $102.4 — $165.7 Billion federal dollars wasted

annually by “failure of care” delivery."

e $75.7 — $101.2 Billion wasted annually by

“Low-Value” or other non-standard care."

Nartey shows authorized advocates” seeking care

at federally-funded entities face the same intentional

discrimination patients often endure alone. Given

statutory protections, advocates need not wait for attorneys to find discrimination suits profitable.!? 42-

US.C.-§-1395dd(d)(2)(A); 42-U.S.C.-§-2000d; 28-C.F R.-

§-42.107(e). (Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280-

281 (2001)). Nor must advocates wait as patients"

overcome challenges" in realizing claims.

" William H. Shrank, MD, MSHS, et al., Waste in the US

Health Care System Estimated Costs and Potential for Savings

JAMA. 2019;322(15):1501-1509. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13978.

1% Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Role of the Patient

Advocate. https://npsf.site-ym.com/page/patientadvocate.

8 96% of civil rights cases are prosecuted pro se according to:

Federal Judicial Center Integrated Database. January 1, 2000-

December 31, 2019 filing counts Figure 6. https://www.uscourts.

gov/news/2021/02/1 ljust-facts-trends-pro-se-civil-litigation-2000-

2019#figures_map.

™ Sun M., et al., “Negative Patient Descriptors: Documenting

Racial Bias in the Electronic Health Record. Health Affairs.

2020;41(2) Racism & Health. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01423.

* Bell SK, et al., “Frequency and Types of Patient-Reported

Errors in Electronic Health Record Ambulatory Care Notes.”

JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6): e205867. doi:10.1001/jamanetwork

open.2020.5867.

11

II. Discretionary Relief Requires Due Process

This Court’s inclusion of judicial mistakes in Rule

60(b)(1) invokes as substantial grounds to review the

Seventh Circuit’s Rule 60 judgment as reversable legal

error. Kemp v. United States No.21-5726, 9 (U.S. June

13, 2022).

A. This Court requires reversal of blanket

Rule 60 denials.

Federal rules authorize postjudgment relief “on

motion and on just terms.” FRCP 60(b)(1). Following

Kemp and consistent with existing precedent not previously presented here, blanket denials of leave to

amend sought in timely Rule 60 motions are clear legal

errors requiring reversal:

“the grant or denial of an opportunity to

amend is within the discretion of the District

Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave

without any justifying reason appearing for

the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is

merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.”

Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Forman’s requirement a “justifying reason” appear for Rule 60 denials does not allow reviewing

courts to create reasons as the Seventh Circuit did

here. (App.p.11). Decisions are arbitrary and capricious when the deciding body terminates “without

providing any explanation” or without honoring its

rules. (Healthy Futures of Tex. v. Dep’t of Health &

13

1. Determine whether the deadline missed

is nonjurisdictional. Boechler, No.20-1472,

8 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2022).

2. Conduct a context-specific inquiry to

identify due diligence and other factors

which merit deadline extension. Boechler,

No.20-1472, 11 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2022).

Boechler applies here. First, filing deadlines in District

Court orders are nonjurisdictional. Rules approved by

this Court and Congress show judicial authority persists despite extensions:

A. Before Judgment

(1) “with or without motion or notice” Rule 6(b).

(2) on motion for “excusable neglect”

Rule 6(b).

(3) for “good cause” Rule 16(b)(4).

B. After Judgment

(1) for “inadvertence, mistake, surprise, and excusable neglect” if

done “within a year” of final

judgment. Rule 60(b)(1), (c).

(2) as justice requires under Rule

60(d).

Second, like in Boechler, the requested extension

minimally affects “the uncertainty already present in

the process.” (Boechler, No.20-1472, 2 (U.S. Apr. 21,

2022)). Litigants moving under Rule 60(b) “need only

15

disputes and support her allegations, Nartey’s proposed complaint includes exhibits of:

1. Disparate treatment via a white advocate’s testimony of Franciscan’s stroke

stabilization efforts which differed drastically from Franciscan’s response to Nartey’s requests. (App.45-47).

2. Franciscan’s protocols, as promoted on

the hospital public website. (R#61-63).

Kemp controls because both the Seventh Circuit and

the District Court committed legal error in omitting

Petitioner’s proposed complaint during Rule 60 review.

(App.p.11-12). This Court upholds procedural due process recognizing “the preference expressed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in general, and Rule 15

in particular, for resolving disputes on their merits.”

Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.PA., 560 U.S. 538, 550

(2010).

Rule 60 relief is procedurally just when proposed

complaints:

a. Relate back to the original complaint (Id.;

FRCP 15(c), Pet.p.44);

b. Extend litigation time (“Equitable tolling is a traditional feature of American

jurisprudence” Boechler, pg.8; Rotkiske v.

Klemm, 140 S.Ct. 355, 365 (2019) applying the discovery rule when “the conduct

giving rise to the claim is fraudulent or if

fraud infects the manner in which the

claim is presented.” Zipes v. Trans World

17

CONCLUSION

For the intervening legal circumstances and substantial grounds not previously presented, this PETI-

TION FOR REHEARING should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

ISABELLA NARTEY

Pro Se

5707 South Cass Ave., Unit 41

Westmont, IL 60559

(312) 725-3534

ms.isabella.nartey@gmail.com