Tate v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev. (Summary)

CONDITIONAL REAPPOINTMENT

Tate v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 2:09–CV–01748–LDG (NJK) (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2013)

The court granted summary judgment to the medical center, medical staff, board of trustees, and the chief of the medical staff on all of a doctor’s claims related to his conditional reappointment and the subsequent expiration of his reappointment.

After an incident between the doctor and a patient’s family, the physician was granted reappointment and clinical privileges for a period of only three months, rather than the typical two-year period.  The physician also was required to satisfy certain conditions, namely that he had to: (1) submit to a full mental and physical evaluation with the state health professionals foundation; (2) submit to an evaluation for drug and alcohol dependence with a foundation; and (3) demonstrate evidence of enrollment in an anger management program of the foundation.

The three-month reappointment and grant of privileges was renewed twice.  The appointment and privileges were not renewed a third time because the physician had not provided notice of compliance with the conditions of his reappointment and had not requested an extension.  Thereafter, the doctor brought his action.

In his first claim, the doctor alleged that he had a property interest in his clinical privileges and that these were denied without due process.  The court found that any protected interest in reappointment was not a protected interest in a two-year reappointment to the medical staff and that due process only came into play upon a denial of the reappointment request.  The medical staff bylaws did not recognize a shortened appointment as an adverse action.  Furthermore, a three-month reappointment could not constitute a denial because it did not preclude any reapplication to the medical staff for a period of up to two years.

The court found that the physician had a protected interest in appointment and the grant of privileges themselves, which was not denied by his conditional, shortened reappointment and grant of privileges.  Accordingly, the physician had not identified a protected property interest on which to base his due process claim.

The court also found that the doctor could not maintain any action based on his application for reappointment, because his application contained a waiver by which he agreed to release the medical center from liability for acts made in connection with the credentialing process.

With respect to his contract claim, the court found that the physician could not maintain an action concerning the termination of the contract based on the fact that the contract terminated after three months, rather than after two years.  The offers of membership and clinical privileges clearly specified that the terms of reappointment would be for three months, rather than two years.  Thus, when the contract ended after three months, there was no breach.