Rouben v. Parkview Hosp., Inc. (Summary)

PEER REVIEW

Rouben v. Parkview Hosp., Inc., No. 1:10-CV-397 (N.D. Ind. June 6, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (“district court”) granted a hospital and one of its administrator’s (“administrator”) motion for summary judgment on several claims asserted by a previously privileged doctor (“doctor”), including defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship.  While the physician was employed by Parkview Hospital as a locum tenens physician, he was informed that several hospital employees alleged that he had made several inappropriate comments to them.  The physician denied these allegations.  The physician accepted employment with Gulfport and resigned his employment at Parkview before the allegations could be considered by a peer review committee.

At some point in time, Gulfport became aware that the physician had resigned his position, was also aware of the allegations that had been made against the physician, and withdrew its offer to employ the physician.

The physician denied any wrongdoing and sued Parkview under several theories, including defamation, tortious interference and breach of contract.

The physician’s defamation claim alleged that Parkview Hospital did not offer him the opportunity to appear before its peer review committee prior to disclosing information to his prospective new employer about complaints received about the doctor’s allegedly inappropriate behavior.  However, the hospital argued that it was entitled to immunity from defamation claims based on Indiana’s Peer Review Statute, which provides immunity during an initial investigation so long as the investigating hospital’s policies provide for such review.  The district court agreed and found that Indiana’s Peer Review Statutes guaranteed confidentiality of all proceedings of a peer review committee.  Also, the district court held that the release of liability that was included in the physician’s application for medical staff appointment provided the hospital with additional protection from the physician’s claims.

The doctor based his tortious interference with business relationship claim on the theory that the hospital disclosed the allegations against the doctor to his prospective employer in an attempt to interfere with his business relationship with the prospective employer.  However, the hospital’s administrator explained to the prospective employer, during a phone conversation and later in writing, that the doctor’s privileges were not terminated.  The district court then found that the doctor’s application with the prospective employer was incomplete because he failed to provide a valid Mississippi medical license, current certificate of insurance, and a professional reference.  Therefore, the district court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on this claim as well.