Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr. (Summary)

RELEASE FORM – ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 10 C 6292 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to a residency director and a medical center on a former resident’s defamation claim based on a reference that the director provided to a requesting medical center, finding that a release form, signed by the former resident, granted the director and medical center absolute immunity from the claim.  The former resident claimed that the director and other staff members made false and critical statements about him throughout his residency.  The medical center and the director contended that any issues discussed in the reports were prompted by the former resident’s poor interpersonal communication skills.

Upon completion of his residency, the former resident applied for a position at another medical center.  His application included a release form, which authorized third parties to release information to the medical center upon request, so long as the information pertained to his qualifications as a physician.

In responding to a request for information, the residency director checked a box which indicated that he could not recommend the former resident.  The director returned the forms to the new medical center.  The former resident alleged that the credentialing committee at that medical center did not feel comfortable granting him temporary privileges after receiving this reference.

The former resident then sued the director of his residency program and the medical center for a host of state law claims.  However, at the time of this decision, the only claim left was his defamation claim, because all of the other claims had been dismissed.

The court looked to whether the release form provided the director and medical center with immunity from liability for providing information to the requesting medical center.  The Arizona Supreme Court has not addressed this issue.  Relying on case law from other states, however, the court found that the release would provide absolute immunity to the doctor and medical center for providing the information, if the statements made fell within the scope of the statements covered by the release, i.e., statements regarding the former resident’s qualifications for the new position.  The court then went on to find that the director’s indication that he could not recommend the applicant fell within the scope of the release form, because it either expressed an assessment of the former resident’s skills or implied that the former resident did not possess the qualifications necessary for the job.

However, the court found that immunity could only extend to defamatory statements to the extent that the former resident knew when he signed the release that the statements elicited might be negative.  Since the doctor alleged a history of the director and the medical center making false and critical statements regarding his performance and behavior throughout his residency, the court found that any jury would find that the former resident had reason to know that negative statements may be made against him in response to reference requests.  Therefore, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the medical center and residency director.

The court also awarded the former resident attorney’s fees and expenses incurred due to the medical center’s failure to preserve certain backup tapes during discovery.  However, the only fees recoverable were those directly related to the follow-up discovery that was reasonably necessitated because of the failure to preserve the backup tapes, which the court stated should only be a modest subset of all the discovery costs that the former resident incurred.