121 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1997), 96-35160, Pearl v. Secretary of Navy

Citation121 F.3d 716
Party NameJanice M. PEARL, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY and SURGEON GENERAL of the United States, Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of the Navy, Defendants-Appellees.
Case DateAugust 12, 1997
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 716

121 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1997)

Janice M. PEARL, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY and SURGEON GENERAL of the United States, Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of the Navy, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-35160.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 12, 1997

Submitted [**] August 8, 1997

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, D.C. No. CV-94-01203-TSZ, Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

Before: WRIGHT, D.W. NELSON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Dr. Pearl appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Navy on her claim that the Navy's revocation of her clinical privileges at the Navy Hospital in Oak Harbor was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

When Dr. Pearl applied for employment and clinical privileges at Oak Harbor, Navy regulations required her to disclose fully her employment history and past adverse actions concerning her clinical privileges. E.g., SECNAV Instruction 6320.23 (7 February 1990), Encl. (4), ¶ ¶ 6-7, 9. Despite direct questions on her applications, undisputed evidence shows that she did not disclose fully her past employment and subsequent denial of clinical privileges at two hospitals. The Navy eventually discovered her omissions and a peer review panel concluded that she had falsified her applications based on a comparison of the content of her applications with the undisputed facts of her history with the other two hospitals. The Navy's revocation of her privileges on this record was a rational decision based upon ample evidence after the consideration of all relevant factors. See Gilbert v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 80 F.3d 364, 368 (9th Cir.1996).

Dr. Pearl contends that under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq., she had no duty to disclose the denial of her privileges by one of the prior hospitals while it was still on appeal, but she identifies no provision of the HCQIA that limits a physician's duty of disclosure to an employer. Further, even if this contention had merit, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT