Buy This Entire Record For
Meyer-Conley v. Addiction Counseling and Educational Services, Inc.
United States District Court, D. Oregon
May 14, 2018
HEATHER MEYER-CONLEY and E.T. a minor, through her guardian ad litem, Heather Meyer-Conely, Plaintiffs,
ADDICTION COUNSELING AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., dba EMERGENCE ADDICTION AND BEHAVIORAL THERAPIES and MOLLY NEWMAN, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL MCSHANE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Heather Meyer-Conley brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against defendant Addiction Counseling and Educational
Services, Inc. (“Addiction Counseling” or
“Emergence”) for injuries Meyer-Conley suffered
after defendant provided inaccurate results to the court as
part of Meyer-Conley's court ordered drug
testing. Although Meyer-Conley brings state
negligence claims against Addiction Counseling, those claims
are not relevant to this opinion. Addiction Counseling moves
to dismiss the § 1983 claims for failure to state a
claim. As discussed below, the motion to dismiss, ECF NO. 15,
is GRANTED because the complaint fails to allege Addiction
Counseling was deliberately indifferent to Meyer-Conley's
constitutional rights. Meyer-Conley's request for oral
argument is denied as unnecessary.
Counseling contracted with Lane County Circuit Court's
Drug Court as the exclusive provider of drug testing for drug
court participants. First Am. Compl. ¶ 6. On October 28,
2015, Meyer-Conley went to Addiction Counseling's office
to provide a urine sample (“UA”) as part of the
drug court requirements. During that time period,
Meyer-Conley breast fed E.T., her one-month old daughter. An
employee of Addiction Counseling administered the UA.
13. Plaintiff Meyer-Conley was informed that her UA result
came back positive for opiates.
14. Long after the alleged positive result, Emergence
disclosed that the UA that was tested with Meyer-Conley's
name did not contain methadone, which her other UA tests
before and after clearly demonstrated she had in her system;
and Emergence's Director therefore concluded that the UA
which was submitted to the testing lab was not
Meyer-Conley's urinalysis specimen.
15. Emergence also stated in that letter that defendant
Newman had stated that she followed the Chain of Custody
policy; but that Emergence's policy of collecting one UA
at a time had been violated when Newman allowed two samples
to be submitted at the same time.
16. Because of the erroneous UA result, plaintiff
Meyer-Conley was arrested and jailed for three days; and her
newborn child, plaintiff E.T., was removed to foster care.
17. At the time of her arrest plaintiff Meyer-Conley was on
methadone, which was legal and approved by the drug court.
18. At the time of plaintiff Meyer-Conley's arrest,
newborn E.T.'s nourishment was provided by her
mother's breast milk.
19. While in jail, Meyer-Conley was unable to nurse or to
express breast milk; and was not able to take her methadone.
20. Because Meyer-Conley could not breast-feed E.T. while
E.T. was in foster care (for nearly a week), E.T. went
through severe methadone withdrawals; Meyer-Conley suffered
severe pain in her breasts; and her milk dried up,
permanently depriving both her and E.T. of the emotional and
physical benefits of breast-feeding, which were especially
crucial for E.T., who had been born premature.
First Am. Compl. (internal citation omitted).
noted, Meyer-Conley brings claims against Addiction
Counseling under § 1983. Addiction ...