Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hosp. (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hosp., No. 11-P-1583 (Mass. App. Ct. Sept. 24, 2014)

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a physician’s discrimination and breach of contract claim against a hospital, holding that there were genuine issues of material facts and that a jury should decide if the hospital acted with racial intent.

The plaintiff, a practicing physician of 16 years in Belize, was accepted to the hospital’s residency program. With the exception of one rotation, the physician received strong evaluations about his knowledge, presentations, and patient interaction. In one of the physician’s rotations, he received three strongly negative evaluations. The physician’s subsequent rotation evaluation, however, explained that his behavior in the past had been misconstrued as arrogance in his zeal to impart instruction. This evaluation noted that the physician had demonstrated nothing but caring, concern, and team spirit. This observation was also expressed in the rest of the physician’s rotation evaluations.

The hospital notified the physician that his residency would not be extended for a second year because of concerns in the areas of patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, and practice-based learning. The hospital stated that it would allow the physician to finish out the year in the program. In response, the physician invoked his right to a hearing. After the hearing, the hospital terminated the physician, reversing its earlier decision to allow him to finish out the year. The physician sued, claiming racial discrimination and breach of contract due to the hospital failing to follow its own policies.

The court held that there were genuine issues of material facts and that a jury should decide if the hospital acted with racial intent. In testimony, the hospital’s director of psychiatry raised issues concerning possible institutional racism at the hospital. Also, a department chair noted that the physicians who gave this resident favorable evaluations were personally attacked by his detractors. The court also found that the hospital failed to provide the physician with the procedural safeguards guaranteed to him by the hospital’s polices.