Oladeinde v. Cameron Mem’l Cmty. Hosp. (Summary)

DUE PROCESS/STATE ACTION

Oladeinde v. Cameron Mem’l Cmty. Hosp., No. 1:12-CV-359-TLS (N.D. Ind. July 8, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted a hospital’s motion for partial dismissal of a physician’s claim that the hospital discriminated against him based on race and violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on the fact that the hospital was not a state actor and did not engage in state action.  The court also denied the plaintiff’s request that the court hold the hospital in contempt for “indirectly” violating a TRO by providing employment information to nine hospitals where the plaintiff had sought employment, noting that the plaintiff had specifically consented to the release of the information.

Bower v. Henry Cnty. Hosp. (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Bower v. Henry Cnty. Hosp., No. 13-12-46 (Ohio Ct. App. July 1, 2013)

The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed summary judgment in favor of a hospital that was sued by a physician for gender discrimination under Ohio law.  The appeals court agreed with the lower court’s conclusion based on an examination of ten factors derived from case law that an employer-employee relationship did not exist between the hospital and physician. The court found that the hospital had very little control over the manner in which the doctor practiced medicine, and a physician corporation paid her salary, withheld her taxes, and provided her employment benefits, all of which supported a finding that the doctor was not the hospital’s employee.

Driscoll v. Todd Spencer M.D. Med. Grp. (Summary)

FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Driscoll v. Todd Spencer M.D. Med. Grp., No. 1:11-cv-01776-LJO-SMS (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed a qui tam suit brought by a diagnostic radiologist who claimed that his former employer performed six types of unnecessary services.  The court ruled that the radiologist failed to allege with sufficient specificity the “who, what, where, and how” of the scheme to submit false claims.  The court granted the radiologist leave to amend his complaint to add the necessary details to his complaint.

Hein-Muniz v. Aiken Reg’l Med. Ctrs. (Summary)

HCQIA IMMUNITY

Hein-Muniz v. Aiken Reg’l Med. Ctrs., No. 12-2439 (4th Cir. July 5, 2013)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a hospital based on HCQIA immunity.  The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff physician failed to show that any of the HCQIA requirements were not met, or that the facts relied upon by the hospital Board in terminating her privileges were “so obviously mistaken or inadequate as to make reliance on them unreasonable.”  Thus, the plaintiff was unable to defeat the HCQIA’s presumption that the hospital complied with the Act’s standards.

Warren Hosp. v. N.J. Dep’t of Health and Senior Servs. (Summary)

EMTALA

Warren Hosp. v. N.J. Dep’t of Health and Senior Servs., No. A-5956-10T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 8, 2013)

After emergency primary angioplasty procedures were performed on two critically ill patients at a hospital that was not licensed to provide such services, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services fined the hospital and ordered it to hire a full-time consultant to develop transfer procedures for cardiac patients whose needs could not be met at the hospital.  The hospital sought judicial review, arguing that the Department failed to give sufficient consideration to the hospital’s obligations to stabilize the patients under EMTALA.  The Superior Court of New Jersey remanded the case to the Department to more fully develop the record on the issue of whether the hospital self-created the unacceptable risk of transfer that it relied upon by not developing and adopting effective transport procedures.

Eagle v. Hurley Med. Ctr. (Summary)

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Eagle v. Hurley Med. Ctr., No. 12-13704 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied a medical center’s motion for summary judgment and motion for protective order, reasoning that issues remained whether the medical center did indeed violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PDCRA”) when it terminated a pharmacy employee for walking out on her job.  The pharmacy employee, who suffered from lupus, alleged that the medical center terminated her because she left without permission during her shift when assigned to a more physically demanding assignment.  In reference to the FMLA claim, the court held that the employee at least informed the medical center of her intention to use FMLA and if it did not believe she was taking the day off for her lupus flare-up, it had the right to ask her to re-certify for that particular day.  Under the ADA claim, the court said that an issue remained as to whether the employee requested a reasonable accommodation and whether the medical center failed to engage in good faith communication, which precluded summary judgment.  Further, the PDCRA and ADA share the same purpose and use similar definitions and analyses, thus the resolution of the ADA claim would resolve the PDCRA claim.

Kenyon v. Hosp. San Antonio, Inc. (Summary)

EMTALA

Kenyon v. Hosp. San Antonio, Inc., No. 11-1883 (FAB) (D. P.R. June 28, 2013)

The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss a patient’s EMTALA and state law claims, finding that the hospital did not fail to screen the patient, stabilize the patient, or facilitate the patient’s transfer.  The court held that on two separate occasions the hospital did not fail to screen the patient for purposes of EMTALA.  A hospital may still comply with the screening provisions of EMTALA even if there was a misdiagnosis of the patient’s condition.  EMTALA does not provide a cause of action when a hospital does not stabilize an emergency medical condition it negligently failed to diagnose.   In addition, the hospital did not have the medications necessary to stabilize the patient and, upon transfer, the accepting hospital was prepared to provide the patient with the treatment she required.  Finally, because EMTALA does not create an affirmative right to a transfer to another medical facility for the best treatment available, the ambulance company’s alleged profit-driven disregard for the patient’s medical needs did not amount to the hospital’s failure to facilitate the patient’s transfer.

Granger v. Christus Health Cent. La. (Summary)

HCQIA IMMUNITY DENIED

Granger v. Christus Health Cent. La., No. 2012-C-1892 (La. June 28, 2013)

The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court’s award in favor of a surgeon.  Peer review proceedings arose from the care of a heart patient.  The hospital was not entitled to HCQIA immunity or state law immunity, but the surgeon was not entitled to damages based on lost income. The court rejected the hospital’s argument that the peer review action was distinguishable from the peer review activity described in HCQIA. The peer review activities that eventually led to the revocation of the surgeon’s privileges required notice and hearing; the hospital’s failure to provide adequate notice and hearing following a summary suspension meant that they were not entitled to HCQIA immunity.

The court also held that the hospital breached its contractual obligations to the surgeon by failing to provide a post-suspension hearing. This breach of contract merited an award of general damages. Damages for lost income were vacated because the surgeon failed to submit an application for reappointment. The court saw this as the reason for his permanent loss of privileges and refused to uphold the award for the lost income damages.

Rao v. Wash. Township Health Care Dist. (Summary)

PEER REVIEW/REVOCATION

Rao v. Wash. Township Health Care Dist., No. A134623 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2013)

The California Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a lower court’s decision, with instructions that a hospital provide a surgeon the opportunity to argue whether the peer review action was justified.  After an investigation and a hearing, the hospital board revoked his staff membership and privileges. The appellate court held that the board violated the surgeon’s due process right by revoking his privileges following a hearing panel’s recommendation for less severe discipline.  The court ruled that the surgeon was not provided proper notice or the opportunity to respond to the prospect of revocation.

U.S. ex rel. Soulias v. Nw. Univ. (Summary)

FALSE CLAIMS

U.S. ex rel. Soulias v. Nw. Univ., No. 10 C 7233 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss, ruling that to satisfy Rule 9(b) for a False Claims Act claim, a relator must plead at least some actual examples of false claims and not simply state a “plausible” fraud claim. Concluding that the relator neither identified any actual false claims submitted by the hospital nor stated that the hospital submitted the false claims knowingly, the court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss while allowing the relator one last opportunity to adequately plead her claims.