Wheeless v. Maria Parham Med. Ctr. (Summary)

MEDICAL STAFF PRIVILEGE ACTIONS

Wheeless v. Maria Parham Med. Ctr., No. COA14-612 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2014)

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant a hospital’s motion to dismiss claims filed by an orthopedic surgeon alleging, among other things, unfair and deceptive trade practices and medical malpractice. The hospital and surgeon had been embroiled in a long-standing dispute about the physician’s conduct and potential violations of the hospital’s “disruptive physician policy.”

Although there were several different episodes of conflict between this physician and the hospital, the most salient one for purposes of this court opinion involved an anonymous complaint submitted to the North Carolina Medical Board. This anonymous complaint alleged that the physician engaged in inappropriate and disruptive behavior. According to the physician, the anonymous complaint referenced instances that were subject to a strict confidentiality agreement. Consequently, the physician believed that the anonymous complaint was an attempt by certain individuals to discredit him before the North Carolina Medical Board.

In this appeal, the physician challenged three adverse rulings by the trial court. First, the physician argued that the trial court erred by dismissing his claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices. The appellate court disagreed, finding that health care professionals who make complaints to a medical board are not subject to suit for unfair and deceptive trade practices, because they are performing an integral part of their role in ensuring the provision of adequate medical services. Second, the physician argued that the trial court erred by dismissing his claims for medical malpractice and negligence. The appellate court again disagreed, holding that a physician-patient relationship is necessary in order to bring a medical malpractice claim, and cannot simply be brought by a physician against his colleagues. The court also found that the trial court had acted properly in dismissing the physician’s negligence claims under the doctrine of abatement, finding that if a plaintiff files multiple lawsuits that present significant overlap between the parties, subject matter, issues, and relief requested, then the duplicate claims may be “abated” by the initial lawsuit. Because the negligence claims dealt with many of the same issues as the physician’s first complaint, the appellate court held that the trial court acted properly in dismissing these duplicate negligence claims under the doctrine of abatement.