Ellis v. Allegheny Specialty Practice Network (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT LAW – WHISTLEBLOWER

Ellis v. Allegheny Specialty Practice Network, No. 2:12cv404 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2013)

A Pennsylvania trial court dismissed a doctor’s wrongful discharge claim against his former practice, but allowed his statutory retaliation claims to go forward.  The doctor had entered into a three-year employment contract with the group practice.  He alleged that, during that time, he was asked to engage in certain treatment methods which he believed were unethical, non-consensual, and below the standard of care.  He declined to use such treatment methods and reported the issues to his supervisor and the company’s internal compliance officer, stating that he intended to report the problems to the proper authorities, if they failed to take action to resolve the issues.  Thereafter, his employment was terminated and he sued the group practice for breach of contract, violation of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Statute, violation of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund (“MCARE”), and wrongful discharge.

The group practice moved to dismiss the whistleblower, MCARE, and wrongful discharge claims.  First, the group practice argued that the Whistleblower Statute was inapplicable, because the statute only applies to “employers,” which includes “public bod[ies],” and it did not constitute a “public body” under the statute.  The court rejected this argument.  The statute defined “public body,” in part, as any body funded, in any amount, “by or through” the state.  The court found that the practice satisfied the funding requirement by receiving Medicaid reimbursements and, therefore, constituted a “public body.”

Second, the group practice argued that the MCARE statute was not triggered, because the doctor was not reporting an “incident” or “serious event” within the meaning of the statute.  The court also rejected this argument.  The MCARE statute protects health professionals from retaliation for reporting “incidents” or “serious events” to the appropriate safety officer.  Under the statute, a “serious event” is “[a]n event, occurrence or situation involving the clinical care of a patient in a medical facility that results in death or compromises patient safety and results in an unanticipated injury requiring the delivery of additional health care services to the patient.”  The court found that treatment that was unethical, non-consensual, and below the standard of care, as the doctor alleged, would compromise patient safety and could result in unanticipated injury and, thus, met the definition of a “serious event.”  Since the conduct could meet that definition, there was a possibility that the doctor may have suffered retaliation for reporting conduct covered under the statute.

Third, the group practice argued that the doctor could not maintain a wrongful discharge claim, because he was not an at-will employee.  Under Pennsylvania law, wrongful discharge claims are not available when an employment contract protects the employee from termination without cause.  Because the doctor alleged that he had an employment contract for a definite term, he was not an at-will employee under Pennsylvania law and could not maintain a wrongful discharge claim.  Therefore, the court dismissed the wrongful discharge claim, but denied the motion to dismiss on the doctor’s whistleblower and MCARE claims.