Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp. – Feb. 2015 (Summary)

EMPLOYED PHYSICIANS – PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp., No. 34,286 (N.M. Feb. 19, 2015)

fulltextThe New Mexico Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s judgment on a jury verdict finding that a hospital violated the New Mexico Review Organization Immunity Act (“ROIA”) and “breached an implied promise in [a] surgeon’s employment agreement that he would not face adverse employment consequences” for participating in the medical staff’s peer review process when the hospital terminated the surgeon’s employment because of reports that he acted unprofessionally in a peer review meeting.

The hospital terminated the surgeon’s employment after it received a report that the surgeon, in his role on a peer review committee, had “verbally attacked” another surgeon whose work was under review. The hospital terminated the surgeon’s employment because of this report even though there were reports from other physicians on the peer review committee that the surgeon’s conduct “was not rude in any way” and “was not unusually contentious.”

The surgeon sued the hospital, claiming that the hospital violated ROIA by breaching an implied promise not to take adverse action against him for his participation in the peer review process. A jury found for the surgeon and awarded punitive damages, and the lower court entered a judgment on the jury’s findings. The state appeals court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, as did the state supreme court. The state supreme court held that the surgeon is able to bring a private cause of action against the hospital under ROIA. According to the court, “the acquisition and use of confidential peer review information for purposes of employee discipline is not a statutorily permissible use of peer review information.” Thus, the surgeon’s claim under ROIA was sustainable. The court also concluded that ROIA creates an implied promise that doctors participating in the peer review process will not suffer adverse employment consequences for that participation. Since the hospital terminated his employment for, according to the court, participating in the peer review process, it violated this implied promise. Lastly, the court upheld the jury’s reward of punitive damages. The court stated that it was reasonable for the jury to find that the hospital was indifferent to whether it would be violating the surgeon’s rights when it terminated him based on peer review information.