Lin v. Dignity Health-Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento (Summary)

MEDICAL STAFF PRIVILEGES/WHISTLEBLOWERS

Lin v. Dignity Health-Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento,
No. S-14-0666 KJM CKD (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2014)

A cardiologist sued a hospital, alleging violations of various federal and state laws relating to discrimination, interference with economic interests, unfair trade practices, and whistleblower retaliation arising out of her summary suspension at the hospital. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the cardiologist had failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on her claims.

This dispute emerged after the hospital placed the cardiologist on summary suspension for failure to perform a proper blood transfusion. The cardiologist demonstrated that this blood transfusion did in fact comply with the requirements of the medical staff, and alleged that, in reality, the suspension had been intended to retaliate against her for an earlier report she had submitted. In this report, known as a “Death Discharge Summary,” the cardiologist had opined that the department chair of internal medicine had breached the standard of care by performing a colonoscopy on a patient who had not been hemodynamically stable and who ultimately died. The cardiologist believed that this Death Discharge Summary was the actual reason for her suspension.

In responding to the cardiologist’s lawsuit, the hospital claimed protection for its actions under the state “anti-SLAPP” statute, which creates protections for certain kinds of free speech that are made in connection with issues under consideration in an official proceeding. Hospital peer review activities fall within the scope of the law and, therefore, plaintiffs have to overcome higher evidential burdens in order to bring a successful legal challenge. In this case, the court found that the cardiologist was unable to meet the burden for two reasons. First, since discharge summaries are a routine document prepared for all patients at the hospital, they cannot be used as the sole basis for a whistleblower retaliation claim which requires that a complaint or report be made to the hospital about a quality of care concern prior to the allegedly retaliatory action. Second, because neither the cardiologist nor her attorney attended the medical staff hearing that she had been afforded under the medical staff bylaws, the court concluded that her other claims were barred by a failure to exhaust all available remedies.