Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. (Summary)

PEER REVIEW

Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., No. E2011-01699-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2013)

In the ongoing saga that began when a physician filed suit against a hospital claiming antitrust, federal due process, and equal protection rights violations based on the summary suspension of his clinical privileges following a physical altercation with another physician in the medical staff lounge, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed a trial court’s finding that a physician failed to prove any of the elements of his claim of intentional interference with business relations and affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on the physician’s other claims.

The hospital and physician had been in litigation for over nine years and the case had been to both federal and state courts before returning to this court. The physician argued that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment, in not allowing another amendment to his complaint and additional discovery, by excluding claims regarding the administrative hearing and in holding that he failed to prove his intentional interference with business relations claim.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that there were no disputed issues of fact left to be determined. The court stated that both federal courts had made the same findings of fact, and to go against the already made findings would be inappropriate. The grant of summary judgment was appropriate because there were no disputed issues of fact.    The appellate court also affirmed the denial of an amended complaint and additional discovery. The court again noted that, based on the length of time the case had been in litigation, a third amendment and additional discovery were unlikely to provide any additional information. Any new claims that the physician sought to add should have been known by the time of the second amended complaint. The facts of the administrative hearing were also confirmed, meaning the physician was prohibited from arguing that issue as well.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the physician’s intentional interference with business relations claim because he failed to prove any of the necessary elements. The court stated that at trial the physician failed to identify a specific third party with which the hospital interfered. Further, even if the physician were able to prove that the hospital interfered with a business relation, there was no evidence that the physician suffered damage as a result.