WARREN Mercy Health and several of its employees have asked a federal judge to dismiss a high-profile civil rights lawsuit filed by a Warren woman who was criminally charged after suffering a miscarriage.

Attorneys representing Mercy Health and several St. Joseph Hospital nurses and administrators filed a motion for judgment in the U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit was brought by Brittany Watts, who alleges the hospital staff violated her civil rights and shared private medical information with police, which led to her being charged with a crime following her miscarriage in September 2023.

In their legal request, the hospital defendants argue that even if the facts described by Watts are true, the standard for her claims against them at this stage of litigation must fail and should be dismissed before a trial even begins.

The judge’s task is not to determine whether the facts are true, but whether the law supports the claims based only on the facts as presented in the complaint and the answer. If the claims are legally insufficient, the case could be dismissed against the defendants.

Watts says her lawsuit centers on the loss of a pregnancy in September 2023. She alleges that she arrived at St. Joseph Warren Hospital seeking medical care after experiencing a miscarriage.

According to her complaint, Watts alleges that instead of receiving proper medical care and being allowed to grieve privately, the hospital staff deprived her of the care she requested and was entitled to. Furthermore, she claims the hospital and staff illegally disclosed her confidential medical information to law enforcement, initiating a criminal investigation that resulted in her being arrested and charged.

Watts was initially charged with felony abuse of a corpse. A preliminary hearing was held in November 2023, where a judge found probable cause and ordered the case bound over to the Trumbull County Grand Jury, which ultimately declined to issue an indictment in the case. The criminal charge drew national attention as it involved a miscarriage and the resulting legal treatment of a pregnancy loss.

In her federal civil lawsuit, Watts is seeking compensation for the alleged violation of her civil rights, false criminal charges, and the unauthorized disclosure of her private health details.

The hospital and staff defendants presented several arguments in their motion, asserting they acted lawfully and should not be held responsible for the subsequent actions of law enforcement.

The core of the defense is that the hospital and its employees were simply following the law and cooperating with the police. The motion states that the defendants were told a baby was flushed down a toilet, which prompted their actions.

The defendants argue that they cooperated with authorities, which led to the discovery of the remains of a 22-week-old baby. They pose the rhetorical question in the motion: "Should they really be sued for leading to the discovery of a 22-week-old baby half flushed down a toilet? There is no claim for this. Dismissal is proper".

The hospital defendants also claim they are protected by a legal principle known as qualified immunity, a protection often applied to government officials. But in this context, the defendants argue it applies to their cooperation with law enforcement.

Qualified immunity can shield individuals from liability in a civil lawsuit if they were acting within the scope of their duties and did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. The defendants assert that any disclosure of information to law enforcement was "limited in scope" and done for the purpose of upholding the interest of public safety and investigating a potential crime. They argue that sharing information with police was a necessary and legally protected action, shielding them from the claim of illegally sharing private health details.

The defendants argue that each of Watts' specific claims fails to meet the legal requirements of the law, which allows a person to sue a government agent or entity for violating constitutional rights. The defendants argue that Watts' complaint does not properly state a claim for a constitutional violation against the hospital or the individual employees, who they argue were not acting as government agents when they made the report.

To win a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff generally must prove, among other elements, that the defendants acted with malice and without a reasonable basis for believing a crime was committed. The defendants deny that a lack of probable cause existed in the case. They argue that because they were told a baby was flushed down a toilet, they had a reasonable, good-faith basis to involve law enforcement.

Hospital attorneys also argue that Watts’s claim that their actions caused severe emotional harm requires proof that their conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. The defendants deny that their conduct rose to this level.

The lawsuit is still in its early stages. Judge Sara Lioi is now tasked with reviewing the motion for judgment on the pleadings. She will consider the detailed arguments made by the hospital defendants and the opposing arguments that Ms. Watts’ attorneys will submit.

If the judge grants the motion, the claims against the hospital and the named employees will be dismissed, potentially leaving only the claims against the City of Warren and its police officer, Nicholas Carney, who has filed a separate answer in the case.

If the judge denies the motion, the case will proceed with both sides exchanging information and evidence in preparation for a potential settlement or trial.