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

Related Parts of This Source

1,730 chars

legitimately taken care to reserve its right to exercise discretion for a good reason, a bad

reason, or no reason, the harm it is alleged to have caused for an illicit reason falls within

the broad scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and RCW 49.60.210(1). We once again reverse and

remand the claims for trial.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Facts relevant to this second appeal are largely drawn from our opinion in the first.

Venkataraman Sambas ivan, a native of India, is a board certified interventional

cardiologist with a private practice in the Tri-Cities. Kadlec, which operates a hospital in

Richland, granted staff privileges to Dr. Sambasivan in 2001.

In 2008, Dr. Sambasivan's clinical privileges were up for renewal. In anticipation

of its decision on renewal, the hospital-which had suspended Dr. Sambasivan's

privileges and proctored him over concerns in the past-hired an outside professional to

review cases of the four interventional cardiologists then on staff. During this process

No. 3 I 858-3-III
Sambasivan v. Kadlec Med. etr.

Dr. Sambasivan began to suspect he was being treated differently by the hospital than the

other three interventional cardiologists. For that reason, and because he alone among the

interventional cardiologists had not been paid to provide call coverage, l he sued Kadlec

in June 2008, alleging national origin discrimination and five other claims.

Kadlec's board of directors met on August 14, 2008. At that meeting, the board

discussed the fact that Dr. Sambasivan had filed the lawsuit. The board also discussed a

recommendation made by Kadlec's Medical Executive Committee (MEC) that Dr.