Diakow v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. — Jan. 2017 (Summary)

DISABILITY AND AGE DISCRIMINATION

Diakow v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc.
Case No. 15-11411 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2017)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied in part and granted in part a physician’s and a hospital’s respective motions for summary judgment regarding the physician’s allegations that the hospital had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) by not renewing the physician’s on-call contract.

In December 2008, when the physician was 80 years old, she entered into a two-year on-call physician contract with the hospital.  This on-call contract provided an hourly wage for nighttime on-call emergency department coverage.  This contract was extended twice, through 2013.

In the interim, the physician sustained a leg injury.  Following this injury, the physician began to use a wheelchair to cover longer journeys through the hospital, and a nurse reported that the physician had difficulties getting to and performing surgeries.  The hospital eventually asked the physician to undergo a medical evaluation with a specialist.  Additionally, during one of her on-call services, the physician opted to not assist in an emergency procedure.

As a result of these occurrences, in June 2013, the hospital did not renew the physician’s on-call contract.  The physician did, however, maintain her staff privileges at the hospital.  At this time, the physician was 85 years old.  The physician now alleges that she was terminated in violation of the ADA and ADEA.

The court analyzed three aspects of the physician’s ADA disability claim: (i) whether the physician could perform the “essential functions of the job”; (ii) whether the hospital’s request that the physician undergo a medical evaluation was job-related and consistent with business necessity; and (iii) whether the hospital’s failure to renew the physician’s on-call contract was an ADA violation.  After taking into consideration such things as the on-call physician job description, witness testimony, and hospital communications, the court determined that there were genuine and disputed questions of fact regarding all three aspects of the physician’s ADA claim.  As such, the court denied summary judgment to both the physician and the hospital on all three.

The court next analyzed the physician’s ADEA age discrimination claim.  Even after proceeding as if the physician had shown a prima facie case of age discrimination, the court found that the physician was not able to identify how the hospital’s rationale for failing to renew her on-call contract (i.e., that she could not perform the requirements of the position) was a pretext for engaging in age discrimination.  As such, the court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on the physician’s ADEA age-discrimination claim.