Vistein v. Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists (Summary)

PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES/ IMMUNITY/ WAIVERS

Vistein v. Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists, No. 08-3055 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2009)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed a radiologic technologist’s lawsuit against the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) after it declined to renew her membership because she submitted to the Ohio Department of Health, as part of her licensure renewal, an ARRT card that had been altered to conceal a lapse in her membership.

The technologist’s lawsuit claimed that ARRT denied her due process when it revoked her registration and tortiously interfered with her business relationships by providing information about its refusal to renew her ARRT registration to the hospitals where she was employed.

Among other things, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the technologist’s due process claim based on the waiver provision included in her application for renewal of ARRT registration. The court rejected the technologist’s claim that the waiver was an unconscionable adhesion contract that should not be applied because she had no choice but to sign it. The court did, however, overturn the district court’s award of $150,000 attorneys’ fees to ARRT, finding that, in Ohio, contract provisions awarding attorneys fees are enforceable only if those provisions are specifically negotiated by the parties.

The appeals court also held that ARRT was immune from damages under the state’s peer review statute, rejecting the technologist’s claim that because ARRT merely credentialed technologists but did not perform any subjective peer review, it did not qualify as a health care entity under the statute.