Judge Orders Las Vegas Hospital to Void NPDB Report Against Physician
A federal judge for the District of Las Vegas has ordered the University Medical Center to void a report made with the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) against a physician whose privileges were suspended by the hospital’s medical staff.
The order resulted from a 2008 lawsuit filed by OBGYN Dr. Richard Chudacoff. In 2007, Chudacoff was granted staff privileges at the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada in the Obstetrics and Gynecology department. In April 2008, Chudacoff wrote an email to the OBGYN chair, expressing concerns over the skills of certain OBGYN residents that he supervised at the hospital. The email included several recommendations for improving the quality of care.
Several weeks later, Chudacoff received a letter from the hospital’s Chief of Staff stating the hospital’s Medical Executive Committee had “suspended, altered or modified his medical staff privileges.” Before Chudacoff could be afforded a Fair Hearing, the hospital filed a report with the NPDB stating that Chudacoff’s privileges had been “suspended indefinitely for substandard or inadequate care and substandard or inadequate skill level.” The report cited four cases where Chudacoff caused “serious operative complications during gynecological surgery,” one incident where Chudacoff failed to respond to a medical emergency, and numerous complaints of disruptive behavior.
After the jump - legal analysis
Chudacoff filed suit, alleging claims of violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and assorted state law claims. Following Chudacoff’s Motions for TRO and Preliminary Injunction, and for Partial Summary Judgment, the district court ruled that Chudacoff was not afforded constitutionally sufficient procedural protections. The court also ruled that the hospital was not entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) because the hospital did not comply with the statute’s notice and hearing requirements. See 42 U.S.C. §11112(b). Specifically, the court noted that the “fatal flaw [was] that the defendants suspended Chudacoff’s staff privileges before giving him any type of notice or opportunity to be heard with respect to that suspension.”
However, the Court later granted summary judgment to the hospital on the issue of who Chudacoff could legally sue under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for his constitutionally injury. Chudacoff appealed, and last week the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that he could proceed with claims against the individual MED committee members named as defendants in the case.
Following the Ninth Circuit’s Ruling, the parties entered a Stipulated Order requiring the hospital to void the NPDB report.
The Chudacoff case is significant because although the defendant hospital alleged that they conducted an “investigation” into “an excessive number of surgical complications [involving Plaintiff] in a short, four month time period,” prior to suspending Plaintiff, the key factor in the court’s decision was not the justifications for the suspension, but that Plaintiff was not afforded notice prior to being suspended nor allowed to “refute or challenge the accusations leveled against him”.
The case is Chudacoff v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, 2:08-cv-863 (D. Nev).
