Brandner v. Bateman – May 2015 (Summary)

IMMUNITY – PHYSICIAN ACTION

Brandner v. Bateman, No. S–15513 (Alaska May 15, 2015)

The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed a lower court’s ruling granting summary judgment to several doctors who had been sued by one of their colleagues. The lawsuit arose after a hospital terminated a physician’s privileges over a violation of hospital policy.

The physician had come under scrutiny during 2010, when the Alaska State Medical Board received a report that he had threatened an employee in the governor’s office over a child support matter. The Medical Board ordered the physician to submit to psychiatric and medical evaluations in order to assess his ability to practice medicine. These evaluations confirmed that the physician was fit to practice and the investigation was resolved.

Then, in early 2011, the physician allegedly made a series of strange, “disjointed” statements at an executive committee meeting, raising concerns at the hospital over his ability to practice. When the executive committee ordered him to undergo psychiatric evaluation, he explained that he had recently had one and had been found fit to practice. The hospital reviewed the records of this evaluation and discovered the involvement of the Medical Board.

Under hospital policy, the physician was required to report any condition the Medical Board placed on his ability to practice. The executive committee determined that requiring the physician to submit to a psychiatric evaluation placed a condition on his ability to practice medicine, and therefore voted to terminate the physician’s hospital privileges over his failure to report. After an unsuccessful appeal to the hospital’s fair hearing panel, the physician filed this lawsuit. He sued not only the hospital, but also the doctors on the executive committee, the hearing panel, and the witnesses who testified at the hearing.

On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court held that the individual doctors were immune to the lawsuit. It found that the doctors had made reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts upon which their recommendations were based, had acted in the reasonable belief that their recommendations were warranted, and had acted in a manner not motivated by malice. It emphasized the key point that the executive committee and hearing panel had relied on a reasonable reading of hospital policy and had imposed a corresponding sanction. Consequently, even if the sanction seemed unduly harsh (as the plaintiff-physician argued on appeal), the panel did not act inappropriately in terminating his privileges. The court affirmed the entry of summary judgment on all of the physician’s claims against the individual doctors.