Simpson v. Beaver Dam Cmty. Hosps. – March 2015 (Summary)

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Simpson v. Beaver Dam Cmty. Hosps., No. 14-2269 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2015)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a hospital that was sued for racial discrimination by a physician who withdrew his application for medical staff appointment after being informed by the Chief of Staff that there were a number of red flags related to his application and, if the application were denied, he would be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

In the lower court’s decision, Simpson v. Beaver Dam Cmty. Hosp., Inc., No. 13-cv-40-bbc (W.D. Wis. May 9, 2014), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin discussed the physician’s allegations of racial discrimination prior to granting summary judgment to the hospital. Specifically, in 2010, the physician, who was African-American, was offered employment in a clinic affiliated with the hospital, dependent on his attainment and maintenance of medical staff membership and clinical privileges. During the credentialing process, several “red flags” arose regarding the physician’s application, including his need to take an oral exam to obtain a medical license in the state of Wisconsin, a negative reference describing his disruptive behavior, two medical malpractice claims which were filed when the physician was not insured, and a probationary period during his residency. Following a “heads-up” call from the Chief of Staff, to prevent a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank in the event his application were to be denied, the physician withdrew his application.

Thereafter, the physician sued the hospital, claiming that he was discriminated against because of his race. In ruling on the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, the court determined that the hospital’s concerns regarding the “red flags” were not unreasonable. For example, the oral exam was a deviation from the normal licensure process and, as such, without evidence pointing toward a lack of sincerity, the hospital was well within its right to consider it. Further, it was reasonable for the hospital to rely on the negative reference. Similarly, the hospital was under no obligation to comply with the physician’s request not to contact a former employer who the physician assumed gave the negative reference. The court also held that the hospital’s employment offers to three Caucasians after the physician withdrew his application could not support the physician’s claims. None of the Caucasian physicians’ applications contained problems similar to the physician’s application. As a result, the physician failed to show that the hired physicians were similarly situated.Top of Form

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the grant of summary judgment in favor of the hospital. Notably, the court found the Chief of Staff’s heads-up call to constitute an adverse employment action, stating that the Chief’s “warning indicated that it would be futile for Simpson to maintain his application. The writing was on the wall.” Nevertheless, the court held that Dr. Simpson could not maintain a case of racial discrimination because he offered no direct evidence of racial discrimination. The court emphasized that comments by the Chief of Staff wishing Dr. Simpson good luck in finding a future opportunity that is a “better fit” are not expressly or impliedly discriminatory. Further, the hospital had legitimate, nondiscriminatory concerns about the physician’s application and those concerns were not refuted by the physician.