Neely v. Wilson (Summary)

Neely v. Wilson (Summary)

DEFAMATION

Neely v. Wilson, No. 11-0228 (Tex. June 28, 2013)

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed summary judgment in favor of a media company on a physician’s claim that a broadcast regarding disciplinary action taken by the state Medical Board against him was defamatory.  The supreme court ruled that there was a fact issue regarding the truth or falsity of the gist of the broadcast that the physician was disciplined for operating on patients while taking or using dangerous drugs or controlled substances, precluding summary judgment.  The court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.fulltext

Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co. (Summary)

Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co. (Summary)

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE

Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., No. 12-3062 (DSD/JJK) (D. Minn. July 2, 2013)

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that a hospitalist who was terminated after three months pled sufficient facts to withstand the hospital defendant’s motion to dismiss his claims of retaliatory discharge in violation of the False Claims Act, EMTALA and the Minnesota Whistleblower’s Act.  The court dismissed the hospitalist’s breach of contract claim based on language in the hospital’s Integrity and Compliance Policy, ruling that it was no more than a general statement of policy and did not meet the contractual requirements for an offer.  The court also dismissed the hospitalist’s claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.fulltext

Hamdan v. Ind. Univ. Health N. (Summary)

Hamdan v. Ind. Univ. Health N. (Summary)

HCQIA IMMUNITY/PEER REVIEW IMMUNITY

Hamdan v. Ind. Univ. Health N., No. 1:13-cv-195-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind. June 28, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied a hospital’s motion to dismiss a doctor’s claims asserting violation of a contractual relationship and defamation.  The court held that whether the bylaws created a contractual relationship is a fact question that cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss.  Likewise, the court rejected the defendants’ claims that they were entitled to dismissal based on HCQIA immunity, the Indiana peer review statute immunity or qualified immunity, noting that immunity does not extend under any of those to persons with knowledge of falsity or malice and a lack of good faith, all of which the physician alleged.fulltext

Liberty Univ. v. Lew (Summary)

Liberty Univ. v. Lew (Summary)

PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Liberty Univ. v. Lew, No. 10-2347 (4th Cir. July 11, 2013)

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s challenge to the “individual mandate” and the “employer mandate” in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, upholding the constitutionality of both mandates.fulltext

Shekhawat v. Jones (Summary)

Shekhawat v. Jones (Summary)

OFFICIAL IMMUNITY

Shekhawat v. Jones, No. S12G0552 (Ga. July 11, 2013)

The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to determine whether physicians who were employed as faculty members at the Medical College of Georgia were entitled to official immunity in a malpractice lawsuit.  Because the court found that the physicians were acting within the scope of their employment while rendering the medical care that was the subject of the malpractice suit, the court held that the physicians were entitled to official immunity.  The court explained that, under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, ‘where a state employee commits a tort while acting within the scope of his employment with the State, the State through the employing government agency may be held liable, but the individual state employee may not.”fulltext

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

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.fulltext

Bower v. Henry Cnty. Hosp. (Summary)

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.fulltext

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

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.fulltext

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

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.fulltext

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

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 fulltextprocedures.