Graves v. Ind. Univ. Health – June 2015 (Summary)

HCQIA

Graves v. Ind. Univ. Health, No. 49A05-1412-PL-560 (Ind. Ct. App. June 5, 2015)

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a hospital and two physicians who were defendants in a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff cardiologist who alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with a contract, civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress over the revocation of his clinical privileges.

The trial court found the hospital and two physicians were entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”) on the breach of contract, tortious interference and emotional distress claims. On appeal, the cardiologist argued that immunity should not have been granted since he did not have an opportunity to present all of his witnesses because the hearing ran late. The appeals court found that the cardiologist raised no objections at the hearing, did not specify which witnesses he was unable to call, and did not request a continuance. The cardiologist also argued that he did not receive a fair hearing because one of the defendant physicians responded to the hearing committee’s questions after reviewing the medical records but without discussing the cases with the cardiologist. The appeals court rejected this argument, finding no requirement that the physician discuss the cases with the cardiologist prior to testifying and also finding that the cardiologist had the opportunity to cross-examine the physician.

On the civil rights violation claim, the cardiologist argued that the trial court erred in finding that he produced no evidence that the decision of the hospital to revoke his clinical privileges was a pretext to discrimination. The appeals court disagreed with the cardiologist, stating that in response to the overwhelming evidence provided by the hospital that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to revoke the cardiologist’s clinical privileges, he presented unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations.