Email Alert
By Aimee E. DeFilippo*
May 22, 2009
A federal court in Tennessee has granted summary judgment for five physicians accused of conspiring to harm a competing physician's medical practice. The court found that the state action doctrine barred all claims. (Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Authority, No. 1:07-CV-258 (E.D. Tenn. March 17, 2009).
The plaintiff, Dr. Alexander Stratienko, practiced medicine at Erlanger Medical Center (a hospital owned by the county) until his medical privileges were summarily suspended after he became involved in a physical confrontation with another physician. The hospital's chief medical officer upheld the suspension but informed Stratienko that he had a right to a hearing on the matter. Instead, Stratienko sued, alleging various causes of action against the hospital and its physicians. In addition to constitutional law claims that he was denied due process and equal protection, Stratienko brought conspiracy charges against the hospital and those physicians on the peer review committee that had suspended his hospital privileges.
On March 17, 2009, Chief Judge Curtis Collier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted summary judgment for the defendant physicians, finding that the hospital's status as a public entity effectively barred the antitrust claims against it. The state action doctrine holds that antitrust laws do not reach political subdivisions of states, provided they are acting pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy and provided the state actively supervises the policy. Judge Collier held that the state action doctrine clearly applied to the hospital, which was a state entity, and to the chief medical officer, who was a state employee. The court also found that the doctrine applied to the physician members of the hospital's peer review committee, despite the fact that none were employees of the hospital. In so deciding, the court relied upon an Eleventh Circuit case—Crosby v. Hosp. Authority of Valdosta & Lowndes County, 93 F. 3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1996)—which, on similar facts, found that peer review committee members act as agents of the hospital and that the hospital at all times retained authority over staff credentialing decisions. Judge Collier found similarly that Erlanger Medical Center had the final say in all credentialing decisions, and thus he concluded that the members of the peer review committee were acting as the hospital's agents when they suspended Stratienko's privileges. Accordingly, the court held that they were entitled to immunity under the state action doctrine.
*We would like to thank Aimee E. DeFilippo, Esquire (Jones Day, Washington, DC) for writing this email alert.