X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Dr. G. Mark Jenkins, a cardiologist, joined North Texas Cardiovascular Associates (NTCA) in 1998, after completing a cardiology fellowship. NTCA had a contractual relationship with the Methodist Hospitals of Dallas to provide cardiac services to patients. Accordingly, shortly after joining NTCA, Jenkins applied for medical-staff privileges at the hospital. Dr. Jack Barnett, then chief of the hospital’s department of medicine, initially opposed the application, allegedly because of Jenkins’ omission of an unsatisfactory item in his medical-training history. When Barnett’s opposition failed to persuade his approval-process colleagues, however, Barnett gave Jenkins’ application his support. Upon being granted staff privileges at the hospital in late 1998, Jenkins began working in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (cath lab), where he performed, inter alia, primary angioplasty. The administrative director of the cardiology department testified by deposition that approximately six months after Jenkins arrived, cath-lab employees complained of a hostile work environment. As a result, the cardiology administrator, Barnett and other hospital officials formed an ad hoc committee to determine whether Jenkins should be subject to corrective action. That committee interviewed a number of cath-lab staff members, cardiology-section members, hospital administrators and Jenkins. As stated in a committee document, the committee: concluded “there [was] a hostile environment in the Cath Lab, which is potentially injurious to patient care,” due in large part to Jenkins. On July 21, 2000, the committee recommended termination of Jenkins’ medical-staff membership and privileges. The committee forwarded its recommendation to the corporate medical board. On July 25, 2000, after meeting that day with Jenkins, the board summarily suspended Jenkins’ cath-lab privileges, pending further review. On July 27, 2000, the board recommended that Jenkins retain his staff membership and privileges on condition that he: acknowledge he created a hostile environment in the cath lab and apologize both in writing and in person to the cath-lab employees; agree to undergo psychiatric evaluation and ongoing counseling from a psychiatrist selected by the board; and agree to the monitoring of his cath-lab behavior for an indefinite period of time by a committee recommended by the board. Jenkins agreed to all of the conditions, except the condition that he undergo evaluation by a board-chosen psychiatrist. He requested to choose his own. In addition, Jenkins on Aug. 23, 2000, requested further review by a fair-hearing committee of the medical staff. On Sept. 7, 2000, authorities reported the summary suspension of Jenkins to the national practitioner data bank (NPDB). Following a hearing in December 2000 and January 2001, the fair-hearing committee unanimously disagreed with Jenkins’ summary suspension and, on Feb. 5, 2001, recommended petitioning the NPDB to void the adverse recommendation. Upon receipt of the fair-hearing committee’s report, the board made a final recommendation on Feb. 20 to reinstate Jenkins’ cath-lab privileges, to establish a monitoring committee and to petition the NPDB to void the adverse recommendation. Thus, Jenkins’ suspension lasted approximately seven months. Jenkins sued the hospital, presenting numerous federal and state-law claims, including a 42 U.S.C. �1981 claim (for racial discrimination impairing his ability to make or enforce contracts). The district court granted summary judgment on the �1981 claim in favor of the hospital. The court held that there was no contract in the record to form the basis of a �1981 claim; and, even if there was a contract, that Jenkins failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on whether the hospital intended to discriminate against him on the basis of race. The trial court also imposed “public-reprimand sanctions” against Donald H. Flanary Jr., Jenkins’ attorney, for a “misstatement” in a quotation from Jenkins’ affidavit that was used in Jenkins’ summary judgment brief, according to the opinion by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The trial court found that Flanary’s brief misquoted Jenkins’ affidavit. According to the opinion by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, Jenkins stated in his affidavit that Barnett said to him “he [Dr. Barnett] would not let me [Jenkins] treat his dog.” The brief, however, quoted the statement as “Boy, I would not let you treat my dog,” inserting the racially charged word “boy” at the beginning of the statement. The hospital immediately discovered the misstatement and pointed it out in its Nov. 19, 2003, reply brief. Flanary, however, did not correct this misrepresentation until almost two months later at the summary judgment hearing. Flanary apologized for the misrepresentation and offered to resubmit the brief with the quotation corrected, the 5th Circuit stated. The district court rejected the request. The district court admonished Flanary for “put[ting] before the Court a false piece of evidence” and directed him to submit affidavits explaining his and his firm’s actions in that regard. Eventually, the court in a December 2004 opinion held that Flanary violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3) by “his unprofessional conduct in not verifying the accuracy of the alleged quotation and in not promptly withdrawing it when the error was pointed out. . . .” Accordingly, the trial court “sanctioned him through a public reprimand in the opinion.” Jenkins appealed the grant of summary judgment against him on the �1981 claim, and Flanary claimed “an isolated factual error should not be the basis of Rule 11 sanctions.” HOLDING:Affirmed. Jenkins, the court stated, claimed that by summarily suspending his cath-lab privileges for seven months and reporting this action to the NPDB, the hospital intentionally discriminated against him and thereby interfered with the making or enforcement of his contracts with the NTCA, patients needing angioplasty and a different hospital at which he wanted to acquire staff privileges. Assuming that Jenkins made a prima facie case of discrimination, the court held that he failed to demonstrate that the hospital’s proffered reason for suspending his staff privileges pending investigation of the alleged hostile work environment was not legitimate and nondiscriminatory. As a result, the court did not reach the question of whether the hospital’s actions interfered with his making or enforcement of a contract. To prove intent to discriminate, Jenkins cited 11 alleged remarks by individuals affiliated with the hospital. Jenkins attributed several of the alleged remarks to Barnett. Although Barnett’s alleged remarks about Jenkins reflected a mistrust of him and his professional capabilities, the court stated, none of Barnett’s remarks about Jenkins showed the requisite racial animus towards Jenkins. The court upheld the “public-reprimand sanctions” against Flanary. The error was glaring, the court stated, and could have had “a serious impact” on the trial court’s summary judgment decision. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the “public-reprimand sanctions.” OPINION:Barksdale, J.; Barksdale, DeMoss and Prado, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.