Pennsylvania Court Analyzes Applicability of PSQIA and MCARE Privileges
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted in part and reversed in part a trial court’s order regarding a couple’s motion to compel the production of a hospital’s documents in an action arising out of injuries suffered during delivery by the couple’s newborn child. The court first found that the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (“MCARE”) did not protect from discovery the hospital’s Patient Safety Reporting System report because the hospital failed to establish that the report arose out of a matter reviewed by a patient safety committee or a governing body. On the other hand, the court determined that certain documents were privileged under the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, holding that the documents were “a quintessential example” of “patient safety work product” since they were produced by a patient safety evaluation system and reported to a patient safety organization. Boyle v. Mainline Health, Inc.
Federal Court Upholds Jury Verdict in Favor of a Surgeon Asserting Retaliation Claims
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied, among other things, a military hospital’s motion for judgment as a matter of law in a suit brought by a surgeon asserting claims of retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Title VII. The hospital placed the privileges of the surgeon and another physician in abeyance because of concerns that were raised. The abeyances were converted into a summary suspension after 30 days. Both the surgeon and physician were ultimately reinstated but the surgeon’s reinstatement was delayed because of, ostensibly, reviews of additional concerns that were brought forward about his practice in the hospital. With respect to the surgeon’s claims of retaliation under the ADEA and Title VII, the court found sufficient evidence to support the claims including “a compelling timeline in which [the surgeon] engaged in protected activity [e.g., contact with the EEOC] and was successively delayed from practicing.” The fact that the surgeon’s “non‑complaining comparator” was reinstated [close to four months before the surgeon] was further evidence to support the retaliation claims. Accordingly, the court denied the hospital’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Katz v. McCarthy
Dismissal of Physician’s Retaliation for Whistleblowing Suit Upheld by Appellate Court
The California Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s judgment in favor of a hospital and its Medical Executive Committee in a suit brought by a cardiologist alleging retaliation for whistleblowing following the revocation of his privileges. The cardiologist was granted privileges to, in part, assist to clear a backlog of unread cardiac studies. Shortly thereafter, his privileges and staff membership were revoked by the hospital due to concerns of unethical conduct. The cardiologist sued claiming that the hospital revoked his privileges and membership in retaliation for his whistleblowing complaints. According to the opinion, the cardiologist complained about the backlog, perceived irregularities in the hospital’s nuclear medicine license, and the hospital’s billing practices. In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the court of appeal concluded that the cardiologist’s complaints did not meet the statutory definition of “whistleblowing” because they were not related to patient safety or were already known to the hospital. In addition, the court determined that there was no causal connection between the revocation of the cardiologist’s privileges and the complaints he submitted. Per the court, there was substantial evidence that the cardiologist’s unethical conduct (creating deceptive email accounts and misrepresenting his identity to obtain a report from an external review company and lying to the Medical Executive Committee when questioned about this conduct) was an independent and sufficient basis for the adverse action against his privileges. Sharma v. Ventura County Med. Ctr.