Moore v. Grady Memorial Hosp. Corp. — Aug. 2016 (Summary)

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Moore v. Grady Memorial Hosp. Corp.
No. 14-14719 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a motion to dismiss granted to a hospital by a lower court in a lawsuit filed by a surgeon alleging, among other things, racial discrimination in connection with the summary suspension of his privileges at the hospital.

The surgeon, who is of African American descent, was employed by a medical school which entered into an affiliation agreement with the defendant hospital. Shortly after he began performing surgeries at the hospital, a dispute occurred about whether procedures that he was performing were bariatric procedures, which were not authorized because the hospital did not have a program in place to support bariatric procedures.  While that dispute was ongoing, the surgeon complained to the director of the operating room that surgeons associated with another medical school that had an affiliation agreement with the hospital were being given greater access to operating rooms than those affiliated with his employer medical school which disparity, he claimed, was based on the fact that the majority of the surgeons affiliated with his medical school were African American. Shortly thereafter, the surgeon received a letter informing him that his clinical privileges were suspended due to his continued performance of unauthorized bariatric procedures.  After the medical executive committee determined to continue his suspension, the surgeon sued alleging racial discrimination and retaliation.

The lower court dismissed the claims, finding that the surgeon did not demonstrate the existence of a contractual relationship that had been impaired by the allegedly discriminatory acts – the summary suspension of his privileges, the diversion of patients to white physicians, and failing to provide operating rooms to African American physicians.  On appeal, the primary issue was whether such a contractual relationship existed.  The surgeon claimed that the acts impaired a third-party contract – his employment contract with the medical school – because as part of that contract, he had to maintain clinical privileges at the hospital.  The court agreed, finding that the surgeon pled sufficient factual allegations to support the discrimination claims and reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the doctor’s retaliation claim with directions to re-examine.