Sheikh v. Grant Reg’l Health Ctr. (Summary)

NPDB

Sheikh v. Grant Reg’l Health Ctr., No. 11-cv-1-wmc (W.D. Wis. Jan. 2, 2014)

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that a hospital was immune from liability for reporting a physician to the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”) because the report filed by the hospital accurately reflected why the hospital revoked the physician’s privileges.  The court also ruled that the hospital appropriately terminated the physician’s employment agreement following the suspension of his clinical privileges, and found that the physician was obligated to repay a $50,000 loan he had received from the hospital.

The physician brought suit against the hospital after it reported him to the NPDB, claiming that the hospital reported inaccurate information and acted with the intent to cause emotional distress. The physician also claimed that the hospital terminated him without cause.

The hospital asserted that it was entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”) for the tort claims arising out of filing the report with the NPDB. The court granted summary judgment for the hospital on these claims, finding the hospital immune from claims seeking damages because the report filed by the hospital was not “false.”  The court observed that the hospital’s immunity did not depend on the merits of its underlying decision to revoke the physician’s privileges.  Instead, the question is whether the NPDB report accurately reflected the action taken.  Further, the court dismissed the physician’s claim for injunctive relief against the NPDB, finding that the physician failed to sufficiently assert a claim for such relief.

With regard to the physician’s breach of contract claim, his employment contract specifically stated that it could be terminated if his clinical privileges were suspended.  The physician failed to provide admissible evidence in response to the hospital’s motion for summary judgment showing that the contract should not be enforced.

The hospital also requested summary judgment on its counter-claim for breach of contract, which was premised on a loan agreement signed by the physician and then the hospital.  Among other things, the loan agreement provided that the hospital would advance the physician $50,000, which the hospital executed.  After the physician’s employment was terminated, the hospital demanded that the physician perform his obligation under the loan agreement and repay the principal and interest, which the physician has failed to do.  The court found that the physician knew, or should have known, that his employment could be terminated by the hospital as he executed an employment agreement with express provisions for termination of his employment on the same day he signed the loan agreement.  As such, no reasonable jury could find that the physician’s inability to pay back the loan was because he did not know or could not foresee the situation.  Thus, the court found that the physician breached the loan agreement.

Sheikh v. Grant Reg’l Health Ctr., No. 14-1449 (7th Cir. Oct. 14, 2014)

On October 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.