McLeay v. Bergan Mercy Health Systems Corp. (Summary)

McLeay v. Bergan Mercy Health Systems Corp., No. A-99-474 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2001)

General surgeon with medical staff privileges at defendant hospital sued the hospital, alleging breach of contract and seeking reinstatement of full surgical privileges following the imposition of a monitoring arrangement, a summary suspension and two reports filed with the National Practitioner Data Bank. A jury awarded the surgeon $415,000 at the trial court level and the hospital appealed.

The facts in this case were rather convoluted. The surgeon had received a letter from the hospital’s chief of staff notifying him that he was being investigated for patient care issues. He received a second letter notifying him that the hospital was imposing a monitoring requirement on his surgical privileges. After the physician complained about the lack of advance notice, an ad hoc committee meeting was held where the physician was given the names of the patients whose care had been the basis of the investigation. This meeting resulted in the committee’s decision to continue with the surgical monitoring.

A second meeting was held, further discussing the cases, and again the monitoring arrangement was upheld. The hospital board approved the monitoring agreement and filed a report with the NPDB. The surgeon filed this lawsuit seeking full reinstatement of his surgical privileges.

The hospital attempted to arrange a further meeting with the surgeon to discuss the lawsuit, but the surgeon refused to attend because the hospital would not permit him to bring his attorney. Following this, the hospital notified the surgeon that he was being summarily suspended, allegedly in connection with a surgical procedure he had performed two years prior. The physician was granted a hearing, which was postponed at his request and was never actually held. The board approved the summary suspension and filed another report with the NPDB which stated that the suspension was based on incompetence, negligence and malpractice. The case went to trial and the jury ruled in favor of the surgeon.

On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the trial court verdict and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court had permitted the surgeon to offer expert testimony as to whether the hospital had actually been required to file the two reports to the NPDB. The appellate court held that the testimony, which had “the sole purpose of advising the court of the status of the law as it relates to reporting to the NPDB,” had been irrelevant and inadmissible in a case which was based on breach of contract and allegations that the hospital had breached its medical staff bylaws. The court held that, by permitting the jury to decide whether the hospital made the reports because “the law required it or because it freely chose to do so,” the trial court unfairly prejudiced the substantial right of the hospital to have a fair trial and that a new trial was necessary to remedy the error.