Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,732 chars

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE

VENKATARAMAN SAMBASIVAN, )
) No. 31858-3-111
Appellant, )
)
v. )
)
KADLEC MEDICAL CENTER, a )
corporation, ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
Respondent. )

SIDDOWAY, C.J. - Dr. Venkataraman Sambasivan appeals a second summary

judgment dismissal of his claims that Kadlec Medical Center retaliated against him for a

discrimination lawsuit he filed against the hospital in June 2008. In this court's opinion

in Sam bas ivan v. Kadlec Medical Center, noted at 171 Wn. App. 1013,2012 WL

5208657, at *5, we reversed the trial court's first dismissal of the claims, concluding that

"both parties have presented competing evidence and inferences to be drawn" from

evidence bearing on a causal link between Dr. Sambasivan's lawsuit and Kadlec's

adoption and retroactive application of a proficiency standard that rendered him ineligible

for renewal of his interventional cardiology privileges. We held that it was "appropriate

for the trier of fact to resolve the issue." Id.

No. 31858-3-111
Sambas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

Following remand, Kadlec moved for summary judgment on a basis that had been

urged in part in its first motion. It argued that Dr. Sambasivan had not identified a

contract or employment relationship that would support a retaliation claim and, even ifhe

had, could not show interference with the relationship. The trial court granted the motion

and again dismissed Dr. Sambasivan's retaliation claims.

Central to Kadlec's argument in support of the second dismissal is the fact that it

retained total discretion to delineate physician privileges. But even if Kadlec has