617 F. App'x 724
9th Cir.2015Background
- Dr. James Tate, Jr. was removed from the medical staff and lost clinical privileges at University Medical Center of Southern Nevada (UMC); he sued alleging negligence, breach of contract, and procedural due process violations.
- UMC bylaws promise procedural protections (notice and hearing) for adverse actions like termination of staff membership or denial of reapplication.
- Dispute exists whether Tate voluntarily resigned or was removed: Tate told the Medical Executive Committee he did not intend to resign, and trustee minutes list him as "removed from staff" rather than among resignations.
- The district court dismissed the negligence claim and granted summary judgment for defendants on contract and due process claims; it also converted a motion to dismiss into summary judgment as to Dr. Mansky and denied leave to amend.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit found material factual disputes about resignation and whether UMC breached bylaws, reversed summary judgment on contract and municipal liability, affirmed dismissal of negligence, and affirmed some immunity/waiver rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UMC bylaws create a protected property interest requiring due process | Tate: bylaws give entitlement to staff membership/privileges and procedures; termination without them violates due process | Defendants: Tate voluntarily resigned, so no deprivation of a property interest | There is a material dispute whether Tate resigned; bylaws can create a protected property interest; due process issue survives summary judgment |
| Municipal liability of UMC/trustees for constitutional deprivation | Tate: trustees approved MEC recommendation and can be liable | Defendants: no municipal liability | Reversed district court: trustees ‘‘affirmatively approved’’ recommendation so municipal liability cannot be dismissed at summary judgment |
| Contract claim premised on breach of bylaws and effect of releases | Tate: bylaws (as contract) were breached if he did not resign; release may not cover post-termination procedures | Defendants: no breach; releases bar claim | Reversed: factual disputes over resignation, breach, and scope of releases preclude summary judgment |
| Negligence claim based on statutory bylaws requirement | Tate: UMC violated Nevada statutes requiring hospital bylaws, giving rise to negligence | Defendants: statutes were complied with; no negligence | Affirmed: no statutory violation shown, negligence claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stretten v. Wadsworth Veterans Hosp., 537 F.2d 361 (9th Cir. 1976) (hospital bylaws can create a property interest protected by due process)
- Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1985) (same principle regarding entitlement from bylaws)
- Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 1999) (municipal liability when policymakers affirmatively approve recommendations)
- In re Rothery, 143 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 1998) (conversion of motion to dismiss into summary judgment is permissible when parties submit extra-pleading materials)
- Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1983) (§ 1983 conspiracy requires an agreement to violate constitutional rights)
- Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for denying leave to amend)
- Ashwood v. Clark Cnty., 930 P.2d 740 (Nev. 1997) (requirements for negligence claims alleging violation of statutory bylaws duties)