Goold v. Dreyer

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-05025
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 U.S. F D IL IS E T D R I I N C T T H C E O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Jun 23, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 CAROLINE ANGULO, a single person; ERIC Nos. 4:25-CV-05029-SAB 9 KELLER, a single person; EBEN NESJE, a 4:24-CV-05160-SAB 10 single person; KIRK SUMMERS, a single 4:25-CV-05025-SAB 11 person; CHRISTINE BASH, individually and 12 as a personal representative of THE ESTATE ORDER CONSOLIDATING 13 OF STEVEN BASH; RAYMOND SELLS, GOOLD, AND 14 SUMERLIN, JR., and MARYANN ANGULO, FOR THE 15 SUMERLIN, a married couple; and MARTIN PURPOSE OF 16 WHITNEY and SHERRYL WHITNEY, a CONSIDERING CLASS 17 married couple, CERTIFICATION 18 Plaintiffs, individually and on 19 behalf of others similarly situated, 20 v. 21 PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES 22 WASHINGTON, a non-profit Washington 23 Corporation, also d/b/a/ PROVIDENCE ST. 24 MARY MEDICAL CENTER; DR. JASON A. 25 DREYER, DO, and JANE DOE DREYER, 26 husband and wife and the marital community 27 thereof; and DR. DANIEL ELSKENS DO and 28 JANE DOE ELSKENS, husband and wife and 1 the marital community thereof. 2 Defendants. 3

4 PHERN SELLS, a single person; DENNIS 5 HIGGINS and TRACY HIGGINS, husband 6 and wife; WILLIAM HAMBY and CYNDI 7 HAMBY, husband and wife; and DANIEL 8 WHEELER, 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH; 12 PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; 13 PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND SERVICES 14 — WASHINGTON d/b/a PROVIDENCE ST. 15 MARY MEDICAL CENTER; and 16 PROVIDENCE MEDICAL GROUP d/b/a 17 PROVIDENCE MEDICAL GROUP 18 SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON 19 NEUROSURGERY, a/k/a PMG 20 NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE, WALLA 21 WALLA a/k/a NEUROSCIENCE 22 INSTITUTE d/b/a PROVIDENCE; and JANE 23 AND JOHN DOES 1–6, 24 Defendants. 25

27 28 1 TRADEEN GOOLD; CAL ALVIN HARRIS 2 and MIDGE HARRIS, husband and wife; 3 CHRISTINA COLE and MARCUS COLE, 4 wife and husband; JEFFERY NEHLS and 5 MELISSA NEHLS, husband and wife; 6 SANDEE HAHN and STEPHEN HAHN, wife 7 and husband, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 DR. JASON A. DREYER, DO, and LAURA 11 DREYER, husband and wife and the marital 12 community thereof; PROVIDENCE ST. 13 JOSEPH HEALTH; PROVIDENCE HEALTH 14 & SERVICES; PROVIDENCE HEALTH 15 AND SERVICES — WASHINGTON d/b/a 16 PROVIDENCE ST. MARY MEDICAL 17 CENTER; and PROVIDENCE MEDICAL 18 GROUP d/b/a PROVIDENCE MEDICAL 19 GROUP SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON 20 NEUROSURGERY, a/k/a PMG 21 NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE, WALLA 22 WALLA a/k/a NEUROSCIENCE 23 INSTITUTE d/b/a PROVIDENCE; and JANE 24 AND JOHN DOES 1–6, 25 Defendants. 26

27 28 1 Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay, ECF No. 27, in 2 Sells et al v. Providence St. Joseph Health et al [4:24-CV-05160-SAB]; and 3 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, First to File, ECF No. 21, in Goold et al v. Dreyer 4 et al [4:25-CV-05025-SAB]. The motions were considered without oral argument. 5 In Sells et al v. Providence St. Joseph Health et al [4:24-CV-05160-SAB], 6 Plaintiffs are represented by William Gilbert, Ashley Richards, and Beth Bollinger. 7 Defendants are represented by Jennifer Oetter, Amber Pearce, Andrew Gard, and 8 Meryl Hulteng. 9 In Goold et al v. Dreyer et al [4:25-CV-05025-SAB], Plaintiffs are 10 represented by Mr. Gilbert, Ms. Richards, and Ms. Bollinger. Defendant 11 Providence is represented by Jennifer Oetter and Andrew Gard. Defendants Dreyer 12 are represented by Jeffrey Galloway, Ryan Beaudoin, and Jon Burtard. 13 In Angulo et al v. Providence Health & Services Washington et al [4:25-CV- 14 05029-SAB], Plaintiffs are represented by Mr. Gilbert, Ms. Richards, Ms. 15 Bollinger, Peter Langrock, and Terrance Reed. Defendant Providence is 16 represented by Jennifer Oetter, Kenneth Payson, Ross Siler, and Caleah Whitten. 17 Defendants Dr. Dreyer and Jane Doe Dreyer are represented by Bryce Wilcox, 18 James McPhee, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Beaudoin, and Steven Dixson. Defendant Dr. 19 Elskens is represented by Ronald Van Wert and Stephen Lamberson. 20 The Court has considered the motions, briefs, and caselaw in Sells and 21 Goold, as well as the related case Angulo. For docket management and judicial 22 efficiency, it now consolidates Sells, Goold, and Angulo, for the purpose of 23 considering the class certification issue presented in Angulo. 24 BACKGROUND 25 The Angulo case was filed in King County Superior Court on May 13, 2022. 26 On June 30, 2022, the Defendants timely removed the matter to the U.S. District 27 Court for the Western District of Washington and pursuant to the Class Action 28 Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1 1332(d) and § 1453. On March 19, 2025, it was transferred to the U.S. District 2 Court for the Eastern District of Washington, because of several related pending 3 matters and in the interest of justice and judicial economy. 4 The Sells case was filed on December 4, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for 5 the Eastern District of Washington and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Goold 6 case was filed on March 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 7 of Washington and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 8 Plaintiffs in all cases seek recovery on several claims, most of which match 9 or mirror the claims in the related cases. These include claims for: medical 10 negligence, in violation of Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70; lack of consent or informed 11 consent to medical procedures; criminal profiteering, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code 12 §§ 9A.82.100 and 9A.82.080, with predicate acts, including for false health care 13 claims, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §§ 48.80.030 and 9A.08.020, money 14 laundering, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.83.020(1)(a)&(b), 9A.83.020(5), 15 and 9A.08.020, and theft by deception, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §§ 16 9A.56.030, 9A.56.040, and 9A.08.020; violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 17 Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86, for deceptive or unfair practices in engaging in their 18 medical services; corporate and vicarious negligence; that Defendants deprived 19 Plaintiffs of their opportunity to discover the factual bases for the causes in 20 violation of the discovery rule; a breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and/or 21 misrepresentation; negligent infliction of emotional distress and outrage; loss of 22 consortium; vicarious liability; unjust enrichment; disgorgement; and limited 23 waiver of physician-patient privilege. 24 In Angulo, Plaintiffs further seek to certify two classes of plaintiffs, 25 Providence Class and MultiCare Class:

26 (1) Providence Class: All surgical patients of the Doctors at 27 Providence who were subject to the RVU compensation scheme in connection with their treatment. 28 1 (2) MultiCare Class: All surgical patients of Dr. Jason A. Dreyer, DO, while he was employed in Spokane, Washington, by MultiCare Health 2 Systems, from May 3, 2019, through November 18, 2021. 3 4 For the Providence Class, Plaintiffs allege the doctors had roughly 1,750 5 patients, which amounts to the same number of class members. For the MultiCare 6 Class, Plaintiffs allege roughly 475 surgical patients for Dr. Jason Dreyer, and thus 7 475 class members. 8 The allegations in these cases arise from care provided by Dr. Dreyer, Dr. 9 Daniel Elskens, and Defendant Providence at its location at St. Mary Medical 10 Center in Walla Walla, Washington, between 2013 and 2018. Plaintiffs allege 11 Defendants breached duties owed by providing unnecessary or inadequate care, 12 resulting in harm. The actions were allegedly driven by an incentive-based 13 compensation scheme prioritizing volume of surgeries over care. These surgeries 14 resulted in the individual harms suffered by each named plaintiff, in all three cases. 15 The issues came to a head in and relate to a March 17, 2022, settlement 16 agreement in a qui tam False Claims Act action among Defendant Providence, the 17 United States, and the State of Washington. Providence agreed to pay the 18 government $22,690,458, with $10,459,388 earmarked as restitution, to resolve 19 allegations that the hospital fraudulently billed federal and state health care 20 programs for surgeries performed by Drs. Dreyer and Elskens at Providence St. 21 Mary Medical Center. Both doctors resigned in the face of Washington 22 Department of Health administrative investigations. But Dr. Dreyer started 23 practicing again at MultiCare Health System in Spokane, Washington.1 24 In the settlement agreement, the parties stipulated that between July 1, 2013, 25 and November 13, 2018, Providence submitted claims and accepted reimbursement 26 from federal and state health care programs for neurosurgery and other services at 27

28 1 MultiCare Health Systems is not a party in any of the matters here. 1 Providence St. Mary; that Providence employed Dr. Dreyer during that entire time 2 period and Dr. Elskens between November 2015 and May 2017; that Providence 3 paid the neurosurgeons in such a way as to encourage higher complexity surgeries 4 resulting in higher compensation; that Providence received and noted concerns 5 about the doctors’ procedures and their medical necessity; that Dr. Elskens was 6 placed on administrative leave in February 2017 and resigned in May 2017; that 7 Dr. Dreyer was placed on administrative leave in May 2018 and resigned in 8 November 2018; and that Providence did not report either doctor to the National 9 Practitioner Data Bank or Department of Health. 10 Providence did not admit to liability in the settlement agreement, though the 11 United States and State of Washington found they had claims against Providence 12 for false claims and failure to take appropriate action with regards to the doctors’ 13 actions. 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) provides:

16 (a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common 17 question of law or fact, the court may:

18 (2) consolidate the actions; 19 A district court considering similar cases at once may also exercise its broad 20 discretion to consolidate matters. See Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 21 848, 855–56 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Investor’s Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 22 Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 23 DISCUSSION 24 The Court finds consolidation appropriate for managing these three related 25 matters and for the purposes of adjudicating the question of class certification. All 26 three cases involve patients who allegedly suffered harm from surgeries performed 27 and medical advice provided by Drs. Dreyer or Elskens, and that the doctors 28 1 conducted these procedures unnecessarily because Defendant Providence operated 2 an incentive-based payment scheme. Further, the claims are nearly identical, or 3 identical, and they all involve Washington State or common law issues. Any 4 unique claims still relate to the same underlying facts and individual harms alleged. 5 In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds consolidation will promote 6 judicial economy by allowing the Court and parties to resolve the threshold 7 question of class certification, a resolution which will potentially impact all three 8 matters. See Garity, 828 F.3d at 855–56. Given that these cases share both 9 common issue of law and fact, the Court consolidates them pursuant to Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 42(a). Following the resolution of class certification issue, the Court may 11 reopen the other matters, if necessary. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 13 1. Sells et al v. Providence St. Joseph Health et al [4:24-CV-05160- 14 SAB]; Goold et al v. Dreyer et al [4:25-CV-05025-SAB]; and Angulo et al v. 15 Providence Health & Services Washington et al [4:25-CV-05029-SAB], are 16 CONSOLIDATED, for the purpose of resolving the issue of class certification. 17 2. The parties shall utilize case No. 4:25-CV-05029-SAB for any filings. 18 3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay, ECF No. 27, in Sells et al v. 19 Providence St. Joseph Health et al [4:24-CV-05160-SAB], is DENIED. 20 a. Plaintiffs’ request to strike Defendants’ filing of Material Facts, 21 noted in their Response at ECF No. 33, is DENIED. 22 4. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, First to File, ECF No. 21, in Goold et 23 al v. Dreyer et al [4:25-CV-05025-SAB], is DENIED. 24 a. Plaintiffs’ request to strike Defendants’ filing of Material Facts, 25 noted in their Response at ECF No. 25, is DENIED. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 5. The Clerk of Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE Sells et al v. Providence St. Joseph Health et al [4:24-CV-05160-SAB] AND Goold et al v. 3)| Dreyer et al [4:25-CV-05025-SAB] until the issue of class certification is resolved. a. All deadlines and hearings in Sells and Goold are STRICKEN. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order, provide copies to counsel, and administratively close Sells et al v. 7| Providence St. Joseph Health et al [4:24-CV-05160-SAB] AND Goold et al v. Dreyer et al [4:25-CV-05025-SAB]. 9 DATED this 23rd day of June 2025. 1

GoeGarh 13 Cb ave A 1 Chief United states District Judge 15 1 17 18 19 2 21 2 23 2 25 2 27 23 ORDER CONSOLIDATING SELLS, GOOLD, AND ANGULO, FOR THE