Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,781 chars
The 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.