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
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
Full Text
1,781 charsThe second contract right or opportunity that Dr. Sambasivan contends was
impaired by Kadlec's adoption and retroactive application of the proficiency standard
was his ability to serve patients who would have come to him at Kadlec for interventional
cardiology consultations and procedures. In resisting summary judgment, he identified
five patients who he had to direct to other interventional cardiologists. 6 Kadlec responds
by arguing (1) that Dr. Sambasivan remained on the medical staff with privileges in
general cardiology; (2) that he could perform interventional procedures at any hospital
where he held interventional privileges, such as Deaconess Medical Center in Spokane;
and (3) that even if Dr. Sambasivan enjoyed rights or opportunities for such contracts, the
lost benefit of the contracts was a collateral consequence of the sort held by Jimenez not
to be actionable under § 1981. Br. of Resp't at 29.
Addressing Kadlec's last argument first, we have already rejected Jimenez's
reasoning that no § 1981 claim lies against a defendant who acts with racial animus and
thereby causes the impairment of a plaintiffs contract rights or opportunities, as long as
the defendant's act was contractually permitted. We reject the argument here as well.
6 Kadlec argues that in response to discovery Dr. Sambasivan asserted that lost
patient relationships were not relevant and refused to produce documentation. Br. of
Resp't at 29. It overlooks the fact that while the doctor initially objected on that basis
and by citing patient confidentiality, he later answered the questions after losing his
motion for a protective order.
22
No. 31858-3-111
Sam bas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.