Langenberg v. Warren Gen. Hosp. — Nov. 2013 (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION/NPDB REPORTS

Langenberg v. Warren Gen. Hosp., No. 1:12-cv-175-NBF (W.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2013)

fulltextThe United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss a vascular surgeon’s claims for abuse of process, breach of bylaws, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The surgeon sued after losing his employment and clinical privileges at the hospital.

Under the terms of the employment agreement between the surgeon and the hospital, the hospital promised the surgeon that it would acquire a new cardiac catheterization lab and would endeavor to develop a healthy cardiovascular practice. After several months of practice, the surgeon began to raise concerns about the quality of care offered at the hospital, noting a number of issues with patient safety, lack of supplies, medication errors, and a lack of employee professionalism. In response, the hospital notified the physician that it was terminating his employment, effective immediately, pursuant to its contractual right to terminate him without cause. A short time later, the hospital filed an adverse action report with the National Practitioner Data Bank, stating that the surgeon was terminated because of his lack of civility and demeaning attitude, which had a disruptive and detrimental effect on the hospital’s working environment.

The surgeon sued the hospital for breach of contract, among other things, arguing that the hospital was required by its bylaws to treat its termination of the surgeon as a non-adverse and, therefore, non-reportable event and, further, to offer him the hearing and appeal procedures outlined in its Fair Hearing Plan. The court rejected these claims. First, it noted that the bylaws did not include any promise on the part of the hospital not to report employment-related actions. It refused to look at the HCQIA’s definition of “professional review action,” despite the arguments of the surgeon that the definition was relevant to whether the hospital should have reported his termination. The court noted that since the surgeon was alleging breach of contract, the court only needed to look to the contract (the bylaws) for any contractual obligation on the part of the hospital not to report the surgeon. There was no such obligation in the bylaws.

Further, the court rejected the surgeon’s arguments that he should have been provided fair hearing rights, noting that the bylaws specifically excluded automatic terminations which followed the termination of employment from the list of actions giving rise to hearing rights. Again, it refused the surgeon’s suggestion that it should consult outside sources (state and federal law) regarding the hospital’s duty to provide the surgeon with hearing rights, noting that any such sources were irrelevant to whether the hospital had agreed by contract (in this case, the bylaws) to provide the surgeon with hearing rights.

The court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss the surgeon’s claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, misrepresentation, and tortious interference. Those claims survive and could potentially go to trial in the future.