Rowell v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hosp., Inc. — Sept. 2016 (Summary)

EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT

Rowell v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hosp., Inc.
Case No. A16A1304 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2016)

The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a hospital and the hospital’s Vice President of Medical Affairs summary judgment, dismissing an anesthesiologist’s claims for, among other things, tortious interference with her existing contractual relationship and violation of the hospital bylaws.

An anesthesiologist had an oral agreement to work on nights and weekends for the anesthesia group that was the exclusive provider of anesthesia services at the hospital.  After the anesthesiologist’s employer met with the Vice President of Medical Affairs (“VPMA”) due to concerns about the anesthesiologist’s patient care, the employer informed the anesthesiologist that the VPMA instructed him to stop the anesthesiologist from coming to work, and if she did come back to work, her privileges would be suspended. Following that conversation, the employer called the anesthesiologist back, told her she wasn’t fired, and that she needed to fight the hospital’s instruction. The anesthesiologist chose not to return to work and picked up her last paycheck.  The anesthesia group then terminated her malpractice insurance policy and as a result she no longer qualified for privileges under the Medical Staff Bylaws.

The anesthesiologist initiated an action against the hospital and the VPMA which included claims for tortious interference with her existing contractual relationship and violation of the hospital’s bylaws. In order for the anesthesiologist to succeed in her claim of tortious interference with her existing contractual relationship, she had to prove the VPMA acted with malice by suspending her privileges.

The VPMA met with the anesthesiologist’s employer to tell him that the hospital planned to investigate her patient care, and that the initiation of the investigation would result in a suspension of her privileges. The VPMA’s communications with the employer were made in good faith, as he was acting in the interest of patient safety; and though he had the right to suspend the anesthesiologist’s privileges, he ultimately did not do so. The anesthesiologist never returned to work; therefore, there was no need to initiate an investigation and suspend her privileges. The anesthesiologist failed to prove the VPMA acted with malice since there was no act; therefore, her tortious inference claim cannot stand.

The anesthesiologist also claimed the VPMA failed to follow the hospital’s bylaws because he did not consult with other members of the Executive Committee concerning her suspension before contacting her employer. When the anesthesiologist made the unilateral decision not to return to work, which resulted in the anesthesia group cancelling her malpractice insurance, a suspension of her privileges was no longer necessary because she was no longer qualified to have privileges at the hospital. Because the hospital never imposed a summary suspension of her privileges, the anesthesiologist was not entitled to the hearing rights that were set forth in the medical staff bylaws.  Therefore, the anesthesiologist did not have a claim for a violation of the bylaws based on a suspension of her privileges.