Eady v. Koon (Summary)

SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT

Eady v. Koon, C.A. No. 3:12-cv-1671-CMC (D. S.C. Feb. 21, 2013)

In this case involving a counterclaim of defamation brought by several surgeons against the orthopedics department chief at the Veterans Affairs hospital where they provided patient care, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the United States’ motion to substitute itself as defendant, in the place of the department chief.  In turn, the court dismissed the chief from the lawsuit.

The surgeons claimed that the United States should not be permitted to substitute as defendant because the department chief was acting outside the scope of his employment when he made his defamatory remarks.  In rejecting that argument, the court noted that the department chief’s comments fell into three categories:  (1) a number of letters that he wrote, challenging the investigation of his practice at the VA and the suspension of his clinical privileges, (2) statements to a claims administrator and assistant U.S. Attorney asserting that one of the surgeons was solely responsible for the damages in a malpractice suit that had been filed against the hospital, and (3) communication with an accreditation agency regarding residents’ rotations at the hospital.

The court held that communications in all three of these categories fell within the scope of the department chief’s employment.  With respect to the first category, the court noted that an employee’s defense of his ability to perform all assigned duties is within the scope of employment when the employee remains employed, presents his defense to his superiors, and makes comments that bear some relevance to his suspension.  With respect to the second category, the court noted that as the head of orthopedic services, the physician was responding to inquiries that had been directed to him as head of the department.  Accordingly, his replies would have been within the scope of his employment.  Finally, the court held that the department chief’s statements regarding the residency rotation were within the scope of his employment because, as chief of the department, he had an interest in having residents perform rotations at the hospital.

Finding all of the department chief’s statements to be within the scope of the physician’s employment, the court granted the motion to substitute the U.S. as counterclaim defendant.