IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERNDISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA

THOMAS J. BROOKS, III, M.D., )

)
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action File No.: 1:18-CV-12
vs. ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND
)
KEVIN SPIEGEL, in his individual ) Complaint under the Civil Rights Act
capacity and in his official capacity as the ) 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chief Executive Officer of Chattanooga- )
Hamilton County Hospital Authority )
(d/b/a) Erlanger Health System, )
)
Defendant. )

ANSWER TO AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Defendant Kevin Spiegel, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the

Chief Executive Officer of Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority (d/b/a Erlanger

Health System) (“Erlanger”), in answer to the Complaint [1] and the Amendment to Complaint

[17]1 states:

FIRST DEFENSE

1. Defendant denies any and all allegations, to the extent there are any, in Paragraph

I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

2. Defendant admits this Court has jurisdiction of this action; however, Defendant

denies any and all allegations against him contained in Paragraph II of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint.

1
Plaintiff’s allegations are set forth in both the Complaint and Amendment to Complaint, which
continues the sequential numbering set forth in the Complaint; defendant treats them herein as a single
document referred to as the “Amended Complaint.” This Answer to Amendment to Complaint is
submitted within the period of time specified by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(a)(6)(A) and 15(a)(3).

Case 1:18-cv-00012-TWP-CHS Document 22 Filed 05/29/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 63

 3. This Defendant admits this Court is the proper venue for this action; however,

Defendant denies any and all other claims or allegations contained in Paragraph III of Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.

4. Upon information and belief, the allegations contained in Paragraph IV of

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are admitted to the extent they describe Plaintiff’s historical

privileges. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph IV are denied.

5. The allegations contained in Paragraph V of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are

admitted.

6. Defendant admits that Thomas J. Brooks, III, M.D. is a citizen of the United

States and has made complaints regarding alleged or perceived racial discrimination for many

years. Defendant further admits that Defendant had dealt directly with these complaints. The

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph VI of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are denied

and Defendant specifically denies that any racial discrimination against Dr. Brooks or others has

occurred.

7. Paragraph VII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint requires no response from this

Defendant; however, Defendant likewise demands a trial by jury on each and every one of

Plaintiff’s claims so triable.

8. In answer to Paragraph VIII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Defendant admits

that Erlanger is a governmental entity with trustees at times appointed by, among others, the

Mayor of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and the General Assembly of Tennessee. All other

allegations contained in Paragraph VIII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are denied.

Case 1:18-cv-00012-TWP-CHS Document 22 Filed 05/29/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 64

 9. In answer to Paragraph IX of the Amended Complaint, Kevin Spiegel has acted

within the course and scope of his official duties. The remaining allegations contained in

Paragraph IX of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are denied.

10. The allegations contained in Paragraph X of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are

denied.

11. The allegations contained in Paragraph XI of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are

denied.

12. Defendant admits that he knew of some of Dr. Brooks’ complaints and that he

visited the health facility that Dr. Brooks was associated with and was also accompanied by

Elizabeth Appling, Erlanger’s Chief Diversity Officer. The remaining allegations contained in

Paragraph XII of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied as stated.

13. In answer to Paragraph XIII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Defendant admits

that the bylaws provide a certain role for the CEO related to the discipline of the medical staff.

The remaining allegations of Paragraph XIII of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

14. In answer to Paragraph XIV of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that

Plaintiff filed a Title VI Grievance (without in any way conceding the legitimacy of the

complaints set forth therein) with Ms. Appling pursuant to its internal protocols for receiving,

investigating, and responding to such complaints, and Erlanger reviewed and investigated that

Title VI Grievance. Before Erlanger notified Dr. Brooks of the results of the investigation, Dr.

Brooks officially withdrew the Title VI Grievance but thereafter again requested that Erlanger

review same. It did so and, finding no evidence to support the allegations set forth therein,

issued a letter stating same. Plaintiff thereafter made various complaints, was directed to the

Case 1:18-cv-00012-TWP-CHS Document 22 Filed 05/29/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 65

 legal department by staff, and was advised by Mr. Woodard to retain counsel. Defendant denies

the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph XIV.

15. In answer to Paragraph XV of the Amended Complaint defendant admits that Mr.

Winick worked with and presented potential opportunities to Dr. Brooks and Family Health

Services. Defendant further admits that Ms. Appling attended some meetings, but Defendant is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining

allegations set forth in the Paragraph XV concerning her attendance at the particular meeting

referenced therein, as it is unclear to which meeting Plaintiff refers. Defendant denies the

remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph XV of the Amended Complaint.

16. In Answer to Paragraph XVI of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that

(1) Plaintiff filed a Title VI Grievance with Ms. Appling pursuant to its internal protocols for

receiving, investigating, and responding to such complaints, and (2) that Title VI Grievance was

investigated and determined not to have an evidentiary basis, as set forth supra in Defendant’s

Response to Paragraph XIV of the Amended Complaint. Defendant denies the remaining

allegations set forth in Paragraph XVI.

17. In answer to Paragraph XVII of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that

Ms. Moore is CEO of Erlanger’s Community Health Centers. Defendant denies the remaining

allegations set forth in Paragraph XVII of the Amended Complaint as stated.

18. In answer to Paragraph XVIII of the Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that

Mr. Webb is an attorney who serves on Erlanger’s Board of Trustees. Defendant is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations

set forth in the Paragraph XVIII of the Amended Complaint.

Case 1:18-cv-00012-TWP-CHS Document 22 Filed 05/29/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 66

 19. In answer to Paragraph XIX of the Amended Complaint, Defendant denies that he

or Erlanger has violated any law. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in the Paragraph XIX of the

Amended Complaint.

20. To the extent that Plaintiff’s prayer for relief alleges any additional complaints or

causes of action, those are denied.

21. All allegations not heretofore admitted to or responded to are denied.

SECOND DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations.

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to recover under multiple theories for the same actions.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendant asserts all rights, immunities, and defenses available to him under the

Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-101, et

seq.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Defendant asserts all defenses available to him under the federal Health Care Quality

Improvement Act, 42 United States Code section 11101, et seq.

Case 1:18-cv-00012-TWP-CHS Document 22 Filed 05/29/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 67

 SEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendant asserts all defenses available to him under Tennessee’s Healthcare Quality

Improvement Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 68-11-272.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Defendant asserts all defenses available to him pursuant to Erlanger’s bylaws for his

failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies.

NINTH DEFENSE

Defendant asserts all immunities available to him in his official and individual capacities.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Defendant

requests that said Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that he recover his expenses

and fees herein, and that he be granted such further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems

just and proper.

Dated: May 29, 2018. Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Arthur P. Brock

Arthur P. Brock (B.P.R. No. 14189)
Cara E. Weiner (B.P.R. No. 31872)
Joseph Alan Jackson II (B.P.R. No. 30603)
SPEARS, MOORE, REBMAN & WILLIAMS, P.C.
601 Market Street, Suite 400
Post Office Box 1749
Chattanooga, TN 37401 1749
Telephone: 423/756 7000
Facsimile: 423/756-4801
apb@smrw.com
cew@smrw.com
jaj@smrw.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:18-cv-00012-TWP-CHS Document 22 Filed 05/29/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 68

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 29th day of May 2018, a copy of the foregoing was filed

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing

system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access this filing

through the Court’s electronic filing system.

By: /s/ Joseph Alan Jackson II

Case 1:18-cv-00012-TWP-CHS Document 22 Filed 05/29/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 69