Levitan v. Northwest Cmty. Hosp. (Summary)

HCQIA IMMUNITY DENIED

Levitan v. Northwest Cmty. Hosp., 13-C-5553 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2014)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied in part and granted in part a hospital’s motions to dismiss a surgeon’s antitrust and hostile work environment claims. A female, Jewish physician of Russian descent had privileges at the hospital, as well as other facilities in the area. According to the complaint, the physician was in good standing at the hospital and had never been the subject of any disciplinary action. The physician alleged that a competing surgeon began insulting, ridiculing, and demeaning her based on her gender, ethnicity and religion. The physician reported this behavior to the hospital as a violation of its Disruptive Behavior Policy. In response, the competing surgeon and his senior partner, who was a member of the hospital’s Medical Executive Committee (“MEC”), allegedly retaliated against the physician by submitting 31 of her cases to the MEC for review. This initiated a peer review process that lasted for two years and ultimately resulted in a recommendation to terminate the physician’s medical staff appointment and clinical privileges.

The physician requested a hearing with a judicial review committee pursuant to the medical staff bylaws. The judicial review committee issued a 24-page decision finding, among other things, that the concerns raised about the 31 cases submitted to the MEC did not support the action and that no actions should be taken against the physician’s privileges. The committee also noted that all future reviews of the physician’s practice should be without the involvement of the competing surgeon or his senior partner. The MEC appealed the judicial review committee’s decision to the hospital’s quality committee, which issued a one-page ruling reversing the judicial review committee’s decision. The hospital’s board affirmed and the physician’s privileges were terminated and a report was filed with the National Practitioner Data Bank. The physician brought this action, claiming antitrust violations and a hostile work environment based on her gender, race, and ethnicity.

The court first denied the hospital and surgeon’s immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the state’s hospital licensing act, finding that the factual allegations provide “plausible ground” to doubt that the actions taken against the physician were done so with a reasonable belief that they were taken in furtherance of quality health care.

And while the court dismissed the physician’s antitrust claim because she did not plead an antitrust injury, the court did find that the physician had adequately pled that she was harassed because of her gender, race, and ethnicity, and that the case should continue to discovery. The court relied on the fact that the physician was singled out by the competing surgeon and his senior partner for being the sole female, Eastern European, Jewish surgeon and that they verbally attacked her, made belittling remarks, and questioned her skill and judgment.