Background
Dentist Abbas Mohammadi, Columbia Dental, P.C., and Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC, settled disputed federal and state False Claims Act allegations concerning Medicaid billing and the use of uncertified dental assistants. The settlement required a $300,000 payment but stated that it was a compromise of disputed claims and was neither an admission of liability by the plaintiffs nor a concession that the governments’ claims lacked merit.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and then Department of Social Services Commissioner Deidre Gifford issued a press release announcing the settlement and describing evidence of overbilling and X-rays taken by uncertified assistants. Alleging that the release was false and harmed their reputations, staffing, financing, and insurance relationships, the plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other theories. The Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all eight counts, and the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their federal claims against the officials in their individual capacities.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed. Although qualified immunity generally does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction and ordinarily should not be raised through a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs waived their objection to that procedural vehicle by failing to raise it in the trial court. The trial court therefore could decide the qualified-immunity defense on its merits.
The plaintiffs did not plead a violation of a clearly established federal right. Their procedural due process claim failed because reputational harm and private parties’ reactions to the press release did not supply the state-imposed “plus” required for a stigma-plus claim, and no professional discipline triggered a right to a hearing. Their Lanham Act theory failed because the release was not alleged to be commercial advertising or promotion intended to influence consumers to purchase the defendants’ goods or services. The substantive due process claim failed to identify a protected liberty or property interest, and the privacy claim failed to identify either the information allegedly disclosed or a clearly established constitutional right to confidentiality in business information. Qualified immunity therefore required dismissal of the challenged claims.
Key Takeaways
- Qualified immunity ordinarily is not jurisdictional, but a plaintiff may waive an objection to resolving it on a motion to dismiss by failing to object in the trial court.
- Government criticism that damages reputation does not establish a stigma-plus due process claim without an additional state-imposed burden or change in legal status.
- A government settlement announcement is not actionable as Lanham Act false advertising absent facts showing commercial advertising or promotion, and ordinary business information is not covered by a clearly established constitutional privacy right.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of converting alleged reputational and commercial injuries from an official press release into federal constitutional claims. Even allegedly inaccurate government statements do not support § 1983 liability unless the plaintiff identifies a distinct, clearly established federal right and adequately pleads the elements of its violation.
The ruling also underscores that litigants must timely challenge the procedure used to raise qualified immunity. An otherwise valid objection that the defense was presented through the wrong procedural vehicle may be lost if it was not preserved below.