A
physician who sued Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Medical
Group) and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser) (collectively,
defendants) based on claims that his employment was terminated in retaliation
for “advocating medically appropriate care” was properly awarded
$200,000, a California appeals court ruled in an opinion posted December 20.
The
California Court of Appeal, Second District, therefore affirmed the judgment
and damages award issued by the lower court based on the jury’s special
verdict finding that the physician was entitled to sue the defendants in tort
for their retaliatory conduct in violation of “public policy” as
defined in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2056.
The
appeals court also affirmed the lower court’s order denying the
defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
Prior to
his termination, the physician, Dr. Mark L. Woods, had worked for the
defendants for 15 years as an emergency room (ER) physician at
Woods claimed
he complained about working conditions and patient care in the ER, and in
retaliation, defendants placed him on administrative leave and reduced pay in
November and December of 2003. Subsequently, in March 2004, Woods filed his
lawsuit charging that defendants’ actions violated public policy
enunciated in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2056.
Although
Woods was later reinstated, he was transferred to another Kaiser hospital and
then suspended again in April 2006 in retaliation for his continued complaints,
the opinion said.
The case
went to trial in May 2006, and according to the appeals court, evidence
presented at trial supported Woods’ allegations that Kaiser-Bellflower
failed to provide appropriate medical screening examinations and stabilizing
treatment for emergency medical conditions.
“Kaiser-Bellflower’s policy was to keep patients
waiting in the emergency room until they left without treatment,” the
appeals court said. “Between 1999 and 2006, more than 5,000 patient were
sent home without receiving medical screening exams.”
Moreover,
incidents reported as part of the administrative citations process showed that
“Kaiser intentionally understaffed and understocked the hospital to
increase profits . . . and provided inadequate and unsanitary care for its
patients,” the appeals court noted.
In June
2006, the jury in the case returned a special verdict finding Woods’
patient advocacy was a motivating factor for defendant-Medical Group’s
placement of Woods on administrative leave and reduction of pay in 2003.
In
addition, the jury answered a number of questions, responding “no”
when asked whether Woods was an employee of the Medical Group, and
“yes” when asked whether Kaiser and the Medical Group were a
“single employer” of Woods.
The jury
ultimately awarded Woods $200,000 for past economic losses only and did not
award punitive damages. The trial court subsequently entered judgment on the
special verdict, awarding Woods $200,000 plus interest from the date of the
verdict.
Defendants
filed a motion for JNOV, contending that because the jury found Woods was not
an “employee” of the Medical Group, his claim for wrongful
retaliation in violation of public policy enunciated in Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 2056 must fail as a matter of law.
Shortly
thereafter, in July 2006, Woods’ job was terminated. One day later, the
trial court denied defendants’ motion.
On
appeal, defendants reiterated their contention that Woods could
not prevail on his public policy claim because he was not an employee of
the Medical Group, according to the jury’s answers to specific questions.
In
rejecting this argument, the appeals court explained “the jury’s
finding that the Medical Group was not Dr. Woods’s employer was merely a
finding that it alone was not . .
. Woods’s employer; it was not an exoneration of defendants.”
“In
a related finding, the jury expressly found Kaiser and the Medical Group were
Dr. Woods’s ‘single employer,’” the appeals court
continued.
In addition,
the appeals court noted that the jury verdict reflected its determination that
the Medical Group had authority over Woods, e.g., placing him on administrative
leave and reducing his pay. These actions were "indicia of an
employer/employee relationship" between the Medical Group and Woods
consistent with the finding that the Medical Group, together with Kaiser, were
Woods’ single employer, the appeals court said.
Affirming
the lower court’s decision, the appeals court concluded that,
“[b]ecause Woods was an employee of the Medical Group and Kaiser,”
he was entitled to bring his tort claims based on defendants’ retaliatory
conduct in violation of the public policy set forth in Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 2056.
Woods
v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Group, No. B193021
(Cal. Ct. App. filed Nov. 20, 2007 and posted Dec. 20, 2007).