880 F.3d 416
7th Cir.2018Background
- Dr. Talal Hamdan, a U.S. citizen of Middle-Eastern (Palestinian) descent and a cardiologist, sued Indiana University Health North Hospital under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging race discrimination and reputational harm related to hostile treatment by colleagues and peer-review discipline letters (later voided).
- He resigned in 2012 after peer-review discipline letters were issued and later voided on appeal; he claimed the hospital failed to stop discriminatory conduct and that his reputation was damaged, seeking substantial damages.
- At trial Hamdan testified his reputation was untarnished before the hospital’s actions; the district court allowed cross-examination probing prior incidents and complaints from his earlier employers to impeach his reputation testimony.
- Cross-examination addressed prior incident reports at four hospitals (Louisiana, Michigan, and two in Indiana); no prior peer-review documents were admitted into evidence, but Hamdan conceded he did not remember particular accusations and did not deny certain sanctions were imposed.
- Hamdan moved for a new trial arguing impeachment questions invaded state peer-review privileges (Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan) and were irrelevant; the district court found he forfeited the privilege argument and that evidence was relevant; it denied the motion.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: federal courts apply federal privilege law under Rule 501 (no federal peer-review privilege recognized); impeachment questions about facts known to Hamdan were admissible and relevant; failure to object at trial also forfeited some challenges to closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state peer-review privileges barred impeachment questions about prior incident reports | Hamdan: peer-review statutes render those documents and related questioning privileged/confidential and inadmissible | Hospital: federal privilege law governs; questions were admissible impeachment about Hamdan’s reputation and facts he knew | Forfeited at trial; even on merits federal courts do not recognize a peer-review privilege under Rule 501; questions about facts known to Hamdan were admissible |
| Whether state peer-review statutes applied in federal court | Hamdan: state statutes protect peer-review materials despite federal forum | Hospital: federal common law of privileges (Rule 501) controls, not state law | Federal Rule 501 governs; Seventh Circuit declines to create a peer-review privilege and applies precedent rejecting it |
| Whether impeachment questions were relevant to Hamdan’s reputation damages claim | Hamdan: prior complaints irrelevant to his claim that hospital’s actions tarnished an otherwise untarnished reputation | Hospital: prior reputation evidence is directly relevant to damages and credibility | Court: questions were relevant to reputation and damages; judge acted within discretion |
| Whether prosecutor’s/defense counsel’s closing comment about six-month probation warranted new trial | Hamdan: comment asserted an unproven sanction and prejudiced jury | Hospital: comment was fair argument based on Hamdan’s testimony; no timely objection | Forfeited by failure to object at trial; not a basis for a new trial; judge could have cured if objected |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (federal law governs evidentiary privileges in federal cases)
- Memorial Hosp. for McHenry County v. Shadur, 664 F.2d 1058 (7th Cir.) (declining to recognize a federal peer-review privilege)
- Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (rejecting peer-review privilege in § 1981 doctor discrimination case)
- Virmani v. Novant Health Inc., 259 F.3d 284 (4th Cir.) (following Memorial Hospital and rejecting peer-review privilege)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (privileges disfavored because they impede truth-seeking)
- Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737 (7th Cir.) (failure to object to closing argument forfeits appellate challenge)