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

Related Parts of This Source

1,766 chars

nexus," and that the bylaws "cannot provide that nexus because (i) the Bylaws are not

contractual and (ii) even if they were, Kadlec has not interfered with or impaired the

Bylaws." CP at 188. It argued that to assert a state retaliation claim, Dr. Sambasivan

must show that retaliatory action was "taken in the context of either an employment

relationship or ... an independent contractor relationship by which the plaintiff

performed personal services for the defendant," that Dr. Sambasivan had neither

relationship to Kadlec, and alternatively, that the board did not prevent the doctor from

continuing to be a member of the medical staff. CP at 200-01.

6
,

!
1
I
No. 31858-3-II1
i Sambas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.
I
j

In response, Dr. Sambasivan argued in the trial court that contrary to Kadlec's

framing of his claims, he relies for his federal retaliation claim not on the medical staff

bylaws, but on Kadlec's interference with his right to form contracts with patients and his

contractual right or expectation of providing call coverage. He argued that the protection

against retaliation provided by chapter 49.60 RCW applies more broadly than to

employers, extending to those who contract with independent contractors and to any

other person who discriminates against an individual who opposes a practice forbidden

by chapter 49.60 RCW.

We review summary judgment decisions de novo, performing the same inquiry as

the trial court. Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wn.2d 853,860,93 P.3d 108

(2004) (citing Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wn.2d 715, 722, 853 P.2d 1373 (1993)). Summary

judgment will be upheld if the pleadings, affidavits, answers to interrogatories,