Sixth Circuit Rejects Employment Claims Brought by Independent Contractor Surgeon

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of Title VII and §1981 claims brought by a surgeon after her surgical privileges were revoked by a hospital after she injured a patient.  Brintley v. St. Mary Mercy Hospital, No. No. 12-2616  (6^th Cir. 11-15-13).  After she had used a particular surgical technique which may caused significant complications for a young patient following a routine procedure, the Hospital’s Chief of Surgery for the defendant hospital requested that the plaintiff surgeon remove herself from the emergency call list and to cease using that surgical technique.  An investigation revealed that in the 13 months she had been on staff, six of her patients had suffered avoidable complications compared to one avoidable complication during the same period for the remaining nine surgeons combined.  The hospital’s executive committee recommended that the plaintiff undergo a proctorship where all of her surgeries would be supervised.  However, when the plaintiff objected to the proctors’ directions, and continued to perform the problematic surgical technique, the Executive Committee voted to suspend her medical privileges.   She brought suit for racial discrimination under Title VII and §1981. 

The Court found that she was not covered by Title as an independent contractor.  She paid her own taxes, licensing fees and malpractice insurance premiums and billed her own patients.  She held privileges at other medical facilities which were not supervised or controlled by the Hospital. She never filed tax returns claiming to be an employee of the hospital.

The Court likewise affirmed the dismissal of her §1981 claim on the grounds that the medical bylaws did not constitute a contract. Section 1981 “protects the equal right of all persons . . . to make and enforce contracts without respect to race.”  The Plaintiff claimed that the hospital violated this statute when it revoked her medical privileges.  The Plaintiff did not have an independent contractor agreement or other contract with the hospital. 

 

Brintley contends that St. Mary’s bylaws created such a contract. But she does not explain which of the bylaws’ provisions create a contract with her, much less how any provision does so. And the bylaws themselves appear primarily, if not exclusively, to describe St. Mary’s self governance and organization. Nothing in them speaks to or creates a contractual relationship with Brintley.

While the bylaws did not explicitly state that they were not a contract, the Court did not find this to be controlling.  The Court did not discuss any quid pro quo which flowed from the hospital to the plaintiff or visa versa.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.