Rios v. Hosp. HIMA San Pablo Fajardo – Sept. 2015 (Summary)

EMTALA

Rios v. Hosp. HIMA San Pablo Fajardo, Civil No. 3:14–CV–01760 (JAF) (D.P.R. Sept. 4, 2015)

In a lawsuit involving a patient who died several days after being discharged from a hospital emergency department, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held that the family of the deceased patient could not maintain an EMTALA claim based on their alleged emotional suffering over the loss of their loved one. The court held that EMTALA violations can only be brought on behalf of the deceased; the relatives themselves had no direct claim pursuant to EMTALA.

Green v. Pennsylvania Hosp. – Sept. 2015 (Summary)

OSTENSIBLE AGENCY

Green v. Pennsylvania Hosp., No. 36 EAP 2014 (Pa. Sept. 3, 2015)

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court’s grant of nonsuit in favor of a hospital and several staff members. The suit was brought on behalf of a patient whose death was a result of complications experienced after a tracheotomy. The trial court acknowledged that the patient presented expert testimony that one of the surgeons involved deviated from the standard of care, but it concluded that the patient failed to establish that the surgeon was an ostensible agent of the hospital, as is required under statutory standards for vicarious liability claims.

The supreme court disagreed, stating that the record contained sufficient evidence to create a jury question concerning whether a reasonably prudent person, in the patient’s position, would be justified in the belief that the surgeon was acting as the hospital’s agent when she rendered care. The patient first entered the hospital through the emergency room and was ultimately admitted to the ICU. Also, the patient was treated by nurses and medical staff once an emergency request was issued. The supreme court concluded that the grant of nonsuit for the nurse named in the lawsuit was proper; however, the grant of nonsuit for the hospital was improper and to be remanded.

Wilson v. Southampton Hosp. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION/RETALIATION

Wilson v. Southampton Hosp., No. 14-cv-5884(ADS)(GRB) (E.D. N.Y. Aug. 28, 2015)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and dismissed in part a hospital’s motion to dismiss claims made by a nurse regarding discrimination, retaliation, and breach of a contract. The nurse was employed at the hospital for over 20 years. She went on disability leave from the hospital in October 2012, due to a dependency on prescription drugs. In January 2013, her nursing license was conditionally reinstated. When she returned to work, she was informed that her former position was unavailable due to her inability to access narcotics. The hospital employed her in a different, temporary capacity, but after testing positively for opiates, her employment ended. The parties disputed whether the nurse resigned or was terminated.

The court dismissed the nurse’s claims for disability discrimination, discriminatory retaliation, failure to reasonably accommodate, and breach of contract, but did not dismiss her claims under the federal Rehabilitation Act and New York State Human Rights Law for intentional discrimination on the basis of a disability and failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

Immormino v. Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

ADEA/AGE DISCRIMINATION

Immormino v. Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc., No. 1:13CV1818 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2015)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted summary judgment in favor of a hospital on ADEA and state age discrimination claims brought by two nurses.

Although the district court noted both nurses had pleaded a prima facie case for age discrimination, the court held neither of the nurses was able to show that the hospital’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing the nurses – falsification of medical records – were pretextual.

Perez v. Doctors Hosp. at Renaissance, Ltd. – Aug. 2015 (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION

Perez v. Doctors Hosp. at Renaissance, Ltd., No. 14-41349 (5th Cir. Aug. 28, 2015)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment granted by a lower court in favor of a hospital on discrimination claims made by the parents of a patient. The four-month-old child was diagnosed with a brain tumor that required monthly treatment at the hospital. Both parents are deaf and primarily communicate with American Sign Language. This litigation arose because the hospital allegedly often failed to provide an interpreter and, on the occasions that the hospital did provide them an interpreter, the parents would have to wait “upwards of a full day” for the interpreter to arrive.

The district court granted summary judgment to the hospital, ruling that the evidence did not establish any real and immediate threat of future harm and that there was no evidence of a complaint about the accommodations being made after the child’s diagnosis. The court of appeals disagreed, stating that the father’s affidavit was evidence that the family experienced recent problems with the hospital’s provision of services, which established a genuine dispute of a material fact.

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.