Reina Andrade and Anabel Quintanilla appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing their suit against Grady Memorial Hospital Corporation over Grady’s closure of the outpatient dialysis clinic where they were patients. For the following reasons, we affirm. After Grady notified Andrade and Quintanilla that it intended to close the clinic where they received three to four years of free outpatient dialysis treatment, they sued Grady on various grounds. The complaint alleged that Andrade and Quintanilla are indigent immigrants1 who are uninsured, cannot afford to pay for dialysis treatment, and need the free treatment to stay alive. The amended version of the complaint at issue did not allege that Grady stopped providing Andrade and Quintanilla with free dialysis treatment after the clinic closed. Rather it alleged that, after Grady notified them in early August 2009 of the coming closure and then closed the clinic near the end of September 2009, Grady continued to provide them with free dialysis treatment pursuant to a contract between Grady and another dialysis provider. The complaint alleged that the contract provided for continued free treatment for one year after the closure, but that Grady threatened to stop paying for their treatment about three months after it closed the clinic. Based on these allegations, Andrade and Quintanilla claimed: 1 that Grady’s closure of the clinic threatened to deprive them of necessary dialysis treatment and was state action which violated provisions of the Georgia Constitution prohibiting deprivation of life without due process of law; 2 that Grady threatened to breach the contract to pay for the other provider to give them a year of free dialysis treatment after the clinic closed, and that they are entitled to breach of contract damages as third-party beneficiaries to the contract; and 3 that Grady wrongfully abandoned them as dialysis patients. The suit also sought injunctive relief to prohibit Grady from abandoning treatment, and sought certification as a class action brought in the name of similarly situated persons.
The trial court granted Grady’s motion pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 b 6 to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should not be sustained unless 1 the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and 2 the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief sought. In deciding a motion to dismiss, all pleadings are to be construed most favorably to the party who filed them, and all doubts regarding such pleadings must be resolved in the filing party’s favor. Stendahl v. Cobb County, 284 Ga. 525 668 SE2d 723 2008 punctuation and citation omitted. Applying these standards, we find no merit to Andrade’s and Quintanilla’s claims that the trial court erred by dismissing the suit.
