Bastidas v. Good Samaritan Hosp. (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION/DUE PROCESS

Bastidas v. Good Samaritan Hosp., No. C 13-04388 SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss the claims of discrimination and denial of due process made by a former doctor.  The plaintiff, a doctor specializing in surgical oncology, was appointed to the medical staff of the defendant hospital.  While performing a Whipple procedure at the hospital, the doctor allegedly removed a patient’s kidney and damaged the patient’s mesenteric artery, and the patient died. The doctor’s privileges to perform the Whipple procedure were suspended.  The Medical Executive Committee, determining that the doctor’s actions fell below the standard of care, later affirmed the existing suspension and expanded it to include other pancreatic procedures.  After numerous hearings, the hospital’s Judicial Review Committee found the suspension of the doctor’s privileges to be “reasonable and warranted.”  The doctor sued the hospital, claiming that the defendant engaged in racial discrimination and violated his right to due process.

The court held that the doctor did not allege sufficient facts to suggest that his suspension was racially motivated.  The cause of action was therefore dismissed, though the doctor was given leave to amend.

With respect to the doctor’s due process claim, the court ruled that he was unable to show why the private hospital was to be treated as a state actor.  The doctor argued that the hospital’s compliance with a statutorily-created system of physician peer review made the defendant a state actor, and therefore liable for denial of due process.  The court disagreed, finding that “private hospitals are not transformed into state actors by virtue of their compliance with California’s statutory scheme.”  Because the doctor failed to show that the private hospital was actually a public entity, the court dismissed the cause of action entirely.