Dunning v. War Mem’l Hosp. (Summary)

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Dunning v. War Mem’l Hosp., No. 12-2540 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2013)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a hospital, finding that a surgeon who sued the hospital alleging discrimination failed to establish the necessary elements of ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.

The surgeon had initially been summarily suspended at the hospital after concerns arose about his medical practice and interpersonal relationships.  The summary suspension was eventually lifted, restrictions were put into place and the surgeon was required to obtain a “professional evaluation” by one of two programs identified by the Medical Executive Committee.  These actions were upheld by the Board following a hearing and an appeal and, while the surgeon did obtain the required evaluation, he refused to provide the results to the hospital.  After being informed that his medical staff appointment would expire at the end of the current term unless he provided the results of the evaluation, he sued in federal court one day before his appointment term was to expire, alleging that the hospital had discriminated against him on the basis of his disability – a personality disorder.

The court found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the surgeon an extension of time to file a response to the hospital’s summary judgment, as the surgeon continuously failed to adhere to the lower court’s schedule.  The court further found that the surgeon’s ADA claim was unfounded, as the surgeon failed to establish that he has a disability of which the hospital was aware, noting that the only mention of a personality disorder was found in the evaluation that the hospital had not even received and that the surgeon himself disagreed with and claimed was full of false statements. As for the surgeon’s Rehabilitation Act claim, the court found that the surgeon failed to state a cognizable claim, as he could not show that he was “excluded solely by reason of his disability.”