Nahas v. Shore Med. Ctr. – May 2015 (Summary)

PROFESSIONAL REVIEW ACTION DISPUTE

Nahas v. Shore Med. Ctr., Civil No. 13-6537 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J. May 29, 2015)

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part a surgeon’s motion requesting permission to amend his complaint, which alleged unlawful activity by a medical center and several of its physician leaders with respect to their refusal to reinstate, and subsequent suspension of, the surgeon’s clinical privileges. The court had dismissed the surgeon’s original, 50-page complaint in full on the basis that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Subsequently, the surgeon amended the complaint, expanding it to fill 127 pages by detailing additional facts, removing a few claims, and adding several new legal theories pursuant to which he seeks relief. The surgeon also took the opportunity to name additional defendants, including the Medical Executive Committee. The medical center and other defendants opposed the surgeon’s motion to amend the complaint, on the basis of futility.

In reaching its decision to allow some of the surgeon’s claims to move forward, while dismissing others on the basis that they fail to state a claim, the court made a few interesting findings. First, it held that the surgeon’s Section 1, Sherman Act claim was pled sufficiently to survive dismissal – even if it was not yet clear that he would be able to prove his claims at trial. In that claim, the surgeon alleged that the members of the MEC acted in concert to adopt new criteria that would bar the surgeon from “restoring” his privileges. It dismissed the Section 2, Sherman Act claim, however, noting that the surgeon failed to plead sufficient allegations of intent by the parties to monopolize a relevant market.

The court also allowed the surgeon’s claim for racial discrimination to survive dismissal, noting several allegations of the surgeon: First, that other, similarly-situated but non-Arab physicians were allowed to resume their privileges after a period of absence, while under the supervision of a proctor – but that he was not given the same allowance. Second, the court observed that the medical center and its physician leaders may have departed so significantly from their normal procedures that their course of action is evidence of an impermissible purpose.

Finally, the court noted that New Jersey law allows surgeons to state a claim for judicial review of private hospitals’ decisions to deny staff privileges. Accordingly, the court will entertain the surgeon’s claim that the medical center denied the surgeon’s privileges in an arbitrary and capricious manner that violated his right to fundamental fairness.