Moran v. Permanente Med. Grp. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

DEFAMATION

Moran v. Permanente Med. Grp., F068748 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2015)

A physician sued his former employer for defamation, alleging that another physician at the group sabotaged his career by speaking negatively of him. Among other things, the other physician said the plaintiff “used peer review as a weapon.”

The trial court held in favor of the medical group because the statements made were either true or merely opinions. The physician appealed, arguing that the trial court overlooked the statements that may look like opinions, but are actually verifiably false statements. The court of appeals rejected this position and upheld the decision of the trial court unconvinced about the nature of the statements.

Hosp. of Cent. Conn. v. Neurosurgical Assocs., P.C. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

ON-CALL SERVICES

Hosp. of Cent. Conn. v. Neurosurgical Assocs., P.C., No. 36272 (Conn. App. Ct. Aug. 4, 2015)

A neurosurgery group inadvertently continued to be paid for on-call services to a hospital after the termination of a written contract for call coverage. The hospital argued that the group was unjustly enriched by accepting payment for continued on-call services after the termination of the contract. The court held that the neurosurgical group was not unjustly enriched because the physicians’ “staffing privileges agreements” (their agreement to abide by the medical staff bylaws when they signed their reappointment applications) required them to provide call coverage and nothing in the bylaws precluded them from being paid. The court concluded that the hospital received a benefit of equal value – call coverage – in return for the inadvertent payments.

Montana Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology Specialists v. St. Peter’s Hospital – Sept. 2015

KissingCamelsSurgeryCenter v. CenturaHealthCorporation – Aug. 2015

Provenzano v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

PHYSICIAN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT – ARBITRATION

Provenzano v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp., No. 1270 WDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2015)

A physician employed by a hospital agreed to perform medical services according to an agreement that included terms governing the physician’s professional representations, warranties, covenants, general professional duties, fees, third-party reimbursements, professional obligations, compensation, benefits, working facilities and set-offs.   The agreement also specified what would happen upon death or disability. The court held that the contract contained a binding arbitration agreement that could be enforced by the board members as agents of the hospital. The court held that all issues presented by the physician should go to binding arbitration.

U.S. ex rel. Judd v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

ANTI-KICKBACK STATUTE – PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BAR

U.S. ex rel. Judd v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 14-3156 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2015)

A physician reported a testing company for violating the Anti-Kickback statute and the Stark Law. The district court dismissed the case against the other defendants because the facts of the kickback scheme had already been publicly disclosed in other cases. The testing company’s case was dismissed because of the failure of the physician to plead his case with specificity. He did not include enough facts to make the case plausible.

Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics and Gynecology, PC – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE – PHYSICIAN GROUP EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics and Gynecology, PC, Nos. 14-2580, 14-2648 (8th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015)

An OB-GYN who was formerly employed by a professional corporation brought an action against his former employer after he was terminated. The physician’s hospital privileges were suspended after an outburst when he used profanity and accused the hospital staff and one of his partners of killing an unborn baby (the high-risk mother had been admitted in premature labor). He told his partners, “I’m going to tell the patient, you know, to sue this hospital…. You know, we’re going to take [the hospital] down.” He had a history of “workplace conflict.” The other physicians in his group terminated him for cause (testifying that he was “abusive and erratic” and the subject of patient complaints). The court of appeals held that contractual protections in the physician’s employment agreement precluded the doctor from maintaining a claim for wrongful retaliatory discharge, reversing a jury verdict in favor of the physician.

Novak v. Somerset Hosp. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

ANTITRUST

Novak v. Somerset Hosp., No. 14-4354 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2015)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of a community hospital and its board members in a lawsuit brought by a general surgeon who alleged the hospital and board members conspired to terminate his privileges so the hospital could “reduce the likelihood that its patients could be treated at [a larger tertiary care hospital in the area],” illegally restraining trade in the area in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The community hospital terminated the surgeon’s privileges after he performed two surgeries without proper authority. He still retained privileges at the tertiary care hospital and maintained a private office close to the community hospital. The court of appeals rejected the surgeon’s arguments related to antitrust standing and market definition. The district court found no rational basis for the surgeon’s argument that the surgical services performed at the community hospital were not interchangeable with the surgical services provided at the large tertiary care hospital, and were not adequate substitutes for each other. The court of appeals similarly rejected the surgeon’s argument that the community hospital “shut [him] out” of the relevant geographic market by terminating his privileges. The court held the surgeon’s definition of the relevant geographic market, the community hospital, was illogical based upon the surgeon’s expert’s own testimony: 32% of the patients at the community hospital were treated at other hospitals in the area.

Vnuk v. Berwick Hosp. Co. – Aug. 2105 (Summary)

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Vnuk v. Berwick Hosp. Co., No. 3:14-CV-01432 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2015)

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied a defendant physician’s motion to dismiss a plaintiff nurse’s Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but granted the defendant hospital’s motion to dismiss the nurse’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The physician, who served as Chief of Staff, allegedly sexually harassed the nurse over a two and one half year period in the emergency department, including many instances of touching and sexually suggestive remarks. The harassment was allegedly general knowledge among hospital staff. The nurse claimed she reported the harassment to supervisors and the hospital’s human resources department, but the hospital decided to only conduct interviews of hospital employees instead of conducting an investigation consistent with its internal policy. Additionally, the nurse claimed the physician and hospital allegedly retaliated against her for reporting the harassment. She also claimed the hospital attempted to deal with the harassment by not scheduling her to work on shifts when the physician would not be present, reducing her work hours.

The physician filed a motion to dismiss the nurse’s PHRA claims, because the nurse had not exhausted her administrative remedies. The district court noted the physician’s name did not need to appear in the caption of the nurse’s Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission complaint; the allegation in the body of the complaint, naming the physician and detailing the actions he allegedly committed, was enough to satisfy this requirement. Additionally, the district court denied the physician’s motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, noting the nurse had alleged sufficient facts to support that claim

The court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss, explaining that while the Pennsylvania worker’s compensation statute provided the sole remedy for injuries allegedly sustained during the course of employment, a personal animus exception exists where the injury is motivated by personal reasons as opposed to generalized contempt. The district court held the alleged retaliatory actions of the hospital did not amount to personal animus for the purposes of the exception; they did not evince intent to harm the nurse for personal reasons. Nor were the alleged retaliatory actions legally sufficient to be considered “outrageous” by a member of the community. Additionally, the district court held the hospital could not be considered vicariously liable for the physician’s conduct because sexual harassment was not in the scope of the physician’s employment at the hospital. The court also noted that the nurse had filed a new administrative complaint, alleging constructive discharge, with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission.

Thomas v. EmCare, Inc. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

FALSE CLAIMS ACT RETALIATION

Thomas v. EmCare, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00130-SEB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 24, 2015)

An emergency room physician sued a hospital, alleging that the hospital violated the federal and state False Claims Act. The physician made formal complaints about the violations and five days later his employment was terminated (after only four months, throughout which he made verbal and written complaints about tests, procedures and alleged Medicare and other insurance fraud). He never received an explanation of his termination. The physician filed suit under the anti-retaliation provisions of the state and federal False Claims Act. The court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss, holding that because the physician provided evidence that he had never received a complaint about his performance during his tenure at the hospital, he provided enough evidence for the case to go forward.