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

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/318583.pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,720 chars

The court then turned to Dr. Jimenez's contention that the suspension of his

medical privileges impaired his opportunity to contract with patients and third-party

payors, a claim that is analogous to Dr. Sambasivan's claim that the Kadlec board's

adoption and retroactive application of a proficiency standard impaired his future

opportunity to contract for call coverage. Jimenez rejects the claim that Dr. Jimenez's

opportunities were impaired, offering the following reasoning:

Jimenez had access to the patients he treated at WellStar only because they
were admitted to the hospital while he was on call; thus, his relationship
with them was a benefit of the medical staff privileges to which he was no
longer entitled. The same conclusion precludes any claim Jimenez makes
regarding interference with future contracts he might have formed with
patients admitted after his suspension; in addition, such contracts are too
speculative to form the basis of a § 1981 claim .... [A ]ny interference with
Jimenez's relationships with WellStar's patients cannot provide the basis
for his § 1981 claim. It is illogical that Georgia would grant WellStar the
authority to suspend privileges to treat its patients while simultaneously
obliging WellStar to allow Jimenez to contract with its patients for that
treatment.

Id. at 1310.

Jimenez's rationale that future patient and third-party payor contracts relied on by

Dr. Jimenez were "too speculative" has no application to Dr. Sambasivan's reliance in

17
             

No. 31858-3-111
Sam bas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

this case on future call coverage contracts. As already discussed, Dr. Sambasivan's