Shibley v. King Cty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 4 — May 2016 (Summary)

HCQIA Immunity – NPDB Reporting

Shibley v. King Cty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 4
No. 72855-5-I (Wash. Ct. App. May 23, 2016)

The Court of Appeals of Washington affirmed summary judgment in favor of a hospital that was sued by a physician whose employment had been terminated, holding that the hospital was entitled to immunity and that the employee released the hospital from all claims in a severance agreement.  Additionally, the court affirmed the lower court’s denial of attorney’s fees to the hospital.

This case arose after the physician admitted to dictating a history and physical examination for a patient who he had never seen and, as a result, his employment was terminated. The physician signed a severance agreement that unconditionally released the hospital from any and all claims stemming from his employment and termination. After the physician was terminated from employment, the Medical Executive Committee (“MEC”) voted to also terminate his clinical privileges.  On this same day, the hospital submitted an adverse action report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”), which it later corrected to state the action taken was a summary suspension instead of a revocation of privileges and termination of employment.  The physician exercised his hearing and appeal rights and the governing board of the hospital ultimately upheld the termination of privileges based on the physician’s false documentation of an H&P that he did not perform.

Despite repeatedly admitting that he did not perform the H&P that he documented, the physician sued.  The Court of Appeals of Washington held that the hospital was entitled to immunity because it met the appropriate requirements of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”).  The court noted that even if a hospital does not follow the HCQIA’s specified notice and hearing procedures, those are merely a safe harbor.  The hospital can still be entitled to immunity if it satisfies the standards of the HCQIA.

Further, with respect to the NPDB report, the court noted that the hospital corrected its mistaken report to the NPDB and there was no evidence that it had any ill motives in filing the first report that incorrectly stated the MEC’s recommendation with respect to the physician as a “termination.”

Additionally, the court found that the physician’s signing of the severance agreement barred him from making employment and termination-related claims, such as his claims for breach of the employment agreement and free speech retaliation.

While summary judgment was upheld against the physician, the court rejected the hospital’s assertion that it was entitled to attorney’s fees, reasoning that the claims were not entirely frivolous.