Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Antoine Adem, M.D v. Jefferson Memorial Hospital Association

November 13, 2012

ANTOINE ADEM, M.D., PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, D/B/A/ JEFFERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Ross United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Jefferson Memorial Hospital Association d/b/a Jefferson Regional Medical Center and Warren Mark Breite, M.D.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [ECF No. 17] and Plaintiff Antoine Adem M.D.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 33]. The motions are fully briefed and ready for disposition. The Court will first address Defendants' motion to dismiss, as the granting of that motion would render Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment moot.

Background*fn1

This action arises out of the termination of Plaintiff Antoine Adem, M.D. ("Dr. Adem")'s medical staff privileges at Defendant Jefferson Memorial Hospital Association, d/b/a Jefferson Regional Medical Center ("JRMC"). Defendant Warren Mark Breite, M.D. ("Dr. Breite") is JRMC's Vice President of Medical Affairs and a member of the JRMC Medical Executive Committee ("MEC").

Dr. Adem, an invasive/interventional cardiologist, was granted staff membership and privileges by JRMC in 2002. In 2008, an investigation pursuant to Article 6 of JRMC's Medical Staff Bylaws ("the Bylaws") was opened in response to a complaint made about Dr. Adem. The Medical Care Appraisal Committee ("MCAC") recommended Dr. Adem's privileges be terminated as a result of unethical conduct and upon a finding that he had performed unnecessary medical procedures. On February 9, 2010, Dr. Adem was notified by JRMC of its summary suspension of his invasive/interventional cardiology privileges. On April 26, 2012, the MEC notified Dr. Adem that it was recommending to the JRMC Board of Directors ("the Board") that his privileges and medical staff membership be terminated. Dr. Adem then requested a hearing before a Hearing Review Committee ("HRC"). Under the Bylaws, the HRC acts as a fact-finding tribunal. On June 7, 2011, following six evidentiary hearings comprising over forty hours of testimony from fact and expert witnesses, the HRC concluded that JRMC did not provide conclusive evidence that Dr. Adem's medical procedures were unnecessary or harmful. However, the HRC agreed with the previous findings of both the MCAC and MEC that Dr. Adem had engaged in unethical conduct by submitting a false letter in an attempt to influence decisions regarding his privileges. The HRC recommended, by a vote of 2 to 1, that Dr. Adem's privileges be reinstated.

On June 23, 2011, the MEC met to review the HRC's decision and issued its final recommendation to the Board that Dr. Adem's privileges be suspended for fourteen days, a suspension he had already served, and that his medical staff membership and privileges be terminated as discipline for the ethical issue. As a result of its decision on the ethical issue, its recommendation on the medical issues was rendered moot.

Dr. Adem appealed under Section 7.5-2(b) of the Bylaws. An Appeal Board comprised of eight Board members heard arguments and reviewed written briefs. On September 1, 2011, the Appeal Board issued its decision and findings of fact and conclusions of law affirming the MEC's final recommendation, and terminating Dr. Adem's privileges.

Dr. Adem alleges that prior to the Board's decision, he had a thriving cardiology practice at JRMC predicated on his ability to admit patients to JRMC, utilize JRMC facilities and staff to test, diagnose and treat his patients, and accept referrals of prospective patients from other members of the JRMC medical staff, all of which has been substantially impaired by the termination of his privileges.

In this action, Dr. Adem seeks a declaratory judgment that JRMC's Bylaws are invalid because they failed to afford him a fair hearing procedure and that Defendants violated his legal rights by conducting a hearing that was unfair, unlawful and racially motivated. Dr. Adem also seeks injunctive relief and damages for alleged tortious interference with business expectancy and breach of contract as well as for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, all based on the revocation of his medical staff privileges at JRMC. Jurisdiction in this Court relies on the claim raised in Count III for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Legal Standard

Motion to Dismiss In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must view the allegations in the complaint liberally in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir.2008) (citing Luney v. SGS Auto Servs., 432 F.3d 866, 867 (8th Cir.2005)). Additionally, the Court "must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036, 1039 (8th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (abrogating the "no set of facts" standard for Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) found in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45--46 (1957)). Thus, as a practical matter, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted "only in the unusual case in which a plaintiff includes allegations that show, on the face of the complaint, that there is some insuperable bar to relief." Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir.2004). The issue on a motion to dismiss is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in support of his or her claim. Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir.1995).

Count III - 42 U.S.C. § 1981

Because Count III is the basis for Dr. Adem's assertion that jurisdiction is proper in this Court, the Court will address Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to this claim first.

Dr. Adem alleges a claim of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981, specifically, that Defendants were motivated by racial animus towards him, a person of Arabic race and Lebanese national origin, in pursuing the charges against him, and that the Board's decision to revoke his medical staff privileges "was precipitated, in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.