There is an interesting case this week involving an adjunct professor at George Washington Law School, where I teach. Hdeel Abdelhady, who teaches part-time in the areas of international trade and Islamic law, sued the university for a variety of torts, including allegations that counsel for the university made overtures to an administrative judge about securing a federal judgeship. Her claims were dismissed by Judge Trevoer McFadden who found that they were foreclosed by worker’s compensation as well as failing to state a claim on various torts. At the time of the ruling, Abdelhady was proceeding pro se, which also proved an issue for the court to address.
In May 2019, Abdelhady attended an “adjunct appreciation luncheon.” When she was leaving, she fell after stepping “on an uneven, sticky, and additionally hazardous stair surface.” She hit the wall at the bottom of the stairwell, injuring her head, face, wrist, hand, and fingers. Abdelhady was taken to The George Washington University Hospital.
In the course of the litigation, Abdelhady asked the court to ignore her election (and receipt) of workers’ compensation benefits and find that the WCA does not apply after all. She insisted that, since she was not acting within the scope of her employment, she was not subject to the WCA. The court rejected the claim and held that “her successful pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits forecloses this argument.”
There are are a couple of interesting elements to this case. First, the court found that the Worker’s Compensation Act was the “exclusive remedy” for recovery and dismissed her negligence claim. At issue was her failure to supply needed information in compliance with the WCA, including information on her medical injuries and cost.
Abdelhady had a drawn out litigation under WCA to force payments from the university. That history includes this notable entry of the court:
“During the prehearing discovery phase, Defendants obtained nine subpoenas for Abdelhady‘s medical and law firm records from the administrative law judge (ALJ) presiding over her claim. Id. ¶ 174. She claims that Defendants’ lawyer had ex parte communications with the ALJ and offered to help her secure a Maryland judgeship. Id. ¶ 154. Abdelhady contends these subpoenas were illegal and thus caused four of her medical providers to release privileged medical information in violationof their fiduciary duty to her. Id. ¶¶ 175-76.” (emphasis added)
That claim failed and the D.C. courts dismissed her claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Abdelhady v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 270 A.3d 896 (D.C. 2022). Throughout this process, she proceeded with counsel.
The university moved forward on Rule 12(b)(6) that Abdelhady failed to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Abdelhady notably proceeded per se but the court rejected any accommodation for that status:
Abdelhady now proceeds pro se. Yet she is “not automatically subject to the very liberal standards afforded to a non-attorney pro se plaintiff because an attorney is presumed to have a knowledge of the legal system and needs less protections from the court.” Robinson v. Howard Univ., Inc., 335 F. Supp. 3d 13, 22 (D.D.C. 2018) (cleaned up), aff’d sub. nom., Robinson v. Wutoh, 788 F. App’x 738 (D.C. Cir. 2019). For starters, Abdelhady is practicing member of the D.C. Bar. See Compl. ¶ 55; Affidavit of Hdeel Abdelhady (Abdelhady SMJ Aff.) ¶ 12, ECF No. 26-5. More, Abdelhady began proceeding pro se after substantive briefing on Defendants’ dispositive motions had finished. See ECF No. 41. Thus, Abdelhady‘s pleadings are not entitled to the special solicitude that courts ordinarily give to pro se parties.
The court proceeded to dismiss a claim against GWU under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C § 1962, by “acting as an enterprise to make money and subvert the [WCA].” This claim included the allegation that GWU dangled a judgeship before the lower court judge.
Abdelhady also entered a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress based on a special relationship. The court found that she failed to show that “(1) the defendant has a relationship with plaintiff, or has undertaken an obligation to the plaintiff, of a nature that necessarily implicates the plaintiff’s emotional well-being, (2) there is an especially likely risk that the defendant’s negligence would cause serious emotional distress to the plaintiff, and (3) negligent actions or omissions of the defendant in breach of that obligation have, in fact, caused serious emotional distress to the plaintiff.” Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic, 22 A.3d 789, 810-11 (D.C. 2011) (en banc).
Abdelhady alleged that a special relationship exists because GW “undertook an obligation to [her] . . . to act in compliance with both its own and the [WCA’s] policies and procedures.” She also claims that GW’s status as a landowner creates a special relationship. Both claims were rejected.
Abdelhady‘s employment and work-related injury did not give rise to a special relationship. The D.C. Court of Appeals teaches that “most cases claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress have arisen—as we think will continue to arise—in the context of doctor-patient relationships.” Hedgepeth, 22 A.3d at 813. This is so because in the doctor-patient context “the emotional well-being of others is at the core of, or is necessarily implicated by, the undertaking.” Id. On the other hand, “many other relationships, even if they involve fiduciary obligations, generally will not come within the rule, because neither the purpose of the relationship nor the fiduciary’s undertaking is to care for the plaintiff’s well-being; rather the object of the engagement is to obtain a financial, commercial or legal objective.” Id.
Abdelhady has failed to allege that she and Defendants were engaged in “a relationship or undertaking . . . that necessarily implicates [her] emotional well-being.” The special relationship that Abdelhady describes is merely an employment relationship. And it is well established that “merely alleging an employer-employee relationship forecloses any special relationship liability.” Nor is there any reason to think that it is “especially likely that serious emotional distress will result from” negligence in the administration of her workers’ compensation claim.
The case is Abdelhady v. George Washington Univ., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216915.
I’m glad I didn’t study Law to be a lawyer of any specialty, especially Tort and Personal Injury. Also, I never lied in my life and being a lawyer isn’t for me. By the way, I’ve been a software engineer all my life and I found out that the software that I and my coworkers developed never sue us even when they’re being abused by users or get injured, emotionally!
“In May 2019, Abdelhady attended an “adjunct appreciation luncheon.” When she was leaving, she fell after stepping “on an uneven, sticky, and additionally hazardous stair surface.” She hit the wall at the bottom of the stairwell, injuring her head, face, wrist, hand, and fingers. Abdelhady was taken to The George Washington University Hospital, and found to have suffered a traumatic brain injury.
In the course of the litigation, Abdelhady asked the court to ignore her election (and receipt) of workers’ compensation benefits and find that the WCA does not apply after all. She insisted that, since she was not acting within the scope of her employment, she was not subject to the WCA. The court rejected the claim and held that “her successful pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits forecloses this argument.”
********************************
What a “throw everything at the wall” this case turned out to be. She took benefits from WC and thus she elected remedies and quite likely it was her best move because her case at law was weak in the context of an injury occurring at an employee function. I know why she proceeded pro se though. What experienced tort lawyer would take this white elephant? Non-moi?
Quod approbo non reprobo.
No problem with he result. Surprised however, that no one claimed that her acceptance of WC was the result of her TBI and that she should not be penalized for that election, since she would not have made such an election absent the effects of that cerebral insult
In the 80s those of a certain generation used to say ‘Burn down the disco’ because the disco and its subsequent culture was so very vapid and empty, you couldn’t enjoy it as a sane person if you hadn’t snorted ten pounds of a white powder. Now: burn down the universities. they are a waste of time and money, and if you are sending your kids there you are a part of the problem, or more specifically, your money is. Your kids are not going to get anything resembling an education at a modern university. Wake the eff up, and stop giving them your money. It is virtually guaranteed that the people who need to hear it most will never read the Professor’s post, because they just don’t pay attention to much. That is why we are here in the first place, and it’s why so many parents still think ‘Ivy League’, which might as well be not even community college, but more probably a mid-previous century eight grade education, means anything whatsoever.
Isn’t that a bit far fetched?
Interesting case. From a medical point of view, Workman’s Comp cases are a morass of sleight of hand by workers striving to get everything possible covered and thereby requiring the treating doctor to extensively go into past history and injuries that the complaining worker is reluctant to discuss at all. That requires obtaining multiple medical records from multiple sources before a final judgement is made of the extent of the injuries even as you treat the most significant injuries acutely. Also many employers require treatment by a specific workman’s comp medical provider who is not the injured workers regular provider. The thought process is that the regular provider will identify with the injured worker but also eliminates the history that the regular provider already has and which the injured worker may not volunteer to the workman’s comp medical provider. Then you have the sleight of hand of the workman’s comp insurers who minimize or outright discount the workers injuries and cut the treatments short or ineffectively use said treatments. Or allege that it is not workman’s comp and bounce the worker back and forth thru the insurance ping pong between regular health insurance and workman’s comp insurance. Each one saying “not my problem”. And then you get into real injuries that deal with permanent disability and frequently end with a worker broke, no job and disabled. Not pretty and often downright cruel.
Best argument for National Health Plan that there is, among many. And I don’t mean the Affordable Care Act.
That was nearly all smoke and mirrors with minimal substance (except for the expansion of Medicaid).
The court found that she failed to show that “(1) the defendant has a relationship with plaintiff, or has undertaken an obligation to the plaintiff, of a nature that necessarily implicates the plaintiff’s emotional well-being…”
It would appear that that would mean that schools have NO obligation to furnish ‘safe places’ to students who encounter run of the mill occurrences.
If this were a Torts Final Exam, she’d fail. Good thing that’s not what GWU hired her to teach, eh?
Greed is the enemy of satisfaction here. A good slip-and-fall lawyer would have worked this case for a settlement maybe in the several of thousands of dollars range and that’s about all it was ever worth. Abdelhady thought she would get more if she upped the claims but the court immediately saw through this and dismissed and rejected her claims. The court also seemed offended that an officer of the court would use her special knowledge and training to finagle the court into finding for her exaggerated and unsupported claims. The old adage that a lawyer who represents herself has a fool for counsel permeates Turley’s account of the case.
Old legal strategy: throw everything against the wall and see what sticks (often used by prosecutors in overcharging).
But she is a lawyer!!!
Higher standard than an aggrieved litigant with limited resources.
She knows that she has to substantiate her statements.
She is lucky that she was not hit with sanctions.
Let me fix that for you: She SHOULD be hit with sanctions and a review by the Bar to determine if suspension and/or disbarment are in order.
Do we see this as lawyers behaving badly?
Turley doesn’t really give an opinion, just states the facts of the case.
IMHO it sounds like she had an accident and got workers comp. But then realized that she could sue the University for money than what she got from workers comp.
Should we blame her actions on her traumatic brain injury, or just pure and simple greed?
-G
Traumatic brain injury and pure and simple greed are not mutually exclusive. Or exhaustive. Please add to the causes for her actions that she is obviously a member of the “progressive” and “woke” class of lawyers, who abound in the District of Columbia.
I believe the litigation is the point. I find a few clients a year who aren’t dependent on the benefits or recovery that are the subject of their claims or cases. They pursue the litigation because they feel wronged and want to prove a point. They want to tell their story and have someone listen. No settlement interests these folks. There’s a downside though; judges finding out they have to work because someone wants their day in court to prove a point. Hence, representing these clients is a chore.