Mir v. Brod
| Decision Date | 02 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:17-cv-04956 |
| Parties | JEHAN ZEB MIR, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE ALAN BROD, et. al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In 2006, Plaintiff Jehan Z. Mir's medical license was revoked for alleged medical misconduct. As a result, he filed suit in this Court against 57 Defendants including individuals, physicians in their individual and official capacities, physician assistants, New York State Department of Health officials, the Director of the Office of Professional Medical Conduct of New York State, two California hospitals, and medical board members in Pennsylvania, New York, and California.[1]In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges seven claims against Defendants, essentially asserting that the three state Boards of Medicine wrongfully revoked his medical licenses in their respective states.[2]The claims are as follows:
(See Doc. No. 1-2 at 7-16.)
Plaintiff has named 57 persons as Defendants in this case. He is suing them for their roles in the revocation of his medical licenses by the medical boards and for their roles in refusing to reinstate his licenses. They are grouped as Defendants by their respective medical board, state agency, or hospital as of the time of the filing of this lawsuit.
The first group of Defendants are members of the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine (“Pennsylvania Board”), including the Chairperson and Vice Chairman of the Pennsylvania Board, all collectively referred to as the “Pennsylvania Medical Board Defendants.”[8]These Defendants, Plaintiff claims, were personally involved in revoking his Pennsylvania medical license and have the authority to reinstate his license. (See id. at 17-20.) He is suing them in their individual and official capacities. (See id.)
The second group of Defendants are current and past members of the Medical Board of California (“California Board”), including the former Executive Director and the President of the Board, collectively referred to as “California Medical Board Defendants.”[9]Plaintiff alleges these members “provid[ed] false basis” to the Pennsylvania Board “to prosecute reciprocal disciplinary charges” against him. (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff has filed suit against these Defendants in their individual and official capacities as members of the California Board. (See id. at 20-27.)
The third group of Defendants are officials of the New York Department of Health and the Office of Professional Medical Conduct, and members of the New York State Medical Board (“New York Board”), all collectively referred to as the “New York State Defendants.”[10] Plaintiff is suing these Defendants for enforcing the New York Board's 2013 decision to revoke his medical license. (See id. at 29.) Each of these Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities. (See id.)
The fourth group consists of four Defendants labeled by Plaintiff as “California Accessory Defendants.”[11](Id.) First, Defendant Mary Agnes Veronica Matyszewski prosecuted the California Board's charges against Plaintiff and is alleged to have “aided and abetted revocation of Mir's medical license” and to have produced false testimony, destroyed evidence, and conspired with the Pennsylvania and New York Boards to revoke Plaintiff's medical licenses there. (Id. at 29-30.) Second, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Jerry D. Wu, a surgery consultant, interviewed him on the California Board's behalf to investigate claims that Plaintiff fabricated an admission note for a patient. (See id. at 30-31.) Third, Defendant Joshua A. Bardin, who served as an expert witness, allegedly made false claims against Plaintiff and false diagnoses during California Board hearings to dispute Plaintiff's diagnosis of a patient. (See id. at 31.) Fourth, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kenneth D. Beck, another expert for the California Board during its hearings, “fil[ed] false documents” when he stated that “he was [a] Certified Vascular Surgeon when in fact he was not certified by any surgical boards.” (Id. at 31 -32.) Plaintiff is suing each of these Defendants in their individual capacities only. (See id. at 10.)
The fifth group of Defendants in this lawsuit are the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (“PVHMC”),[12]Vinod Kumar Garg,[13]Lew Bradley Disney, and Harold Damuth, Jr,[14] all collectively referred to as the “PVHMC California Hospital Defendants.” (See id. at 32-33.) Plaintiff served on the staff at PVHMC and had a $600,000 contract. He alleges that PVHMC California Hospital Defendants conspired to provide false testimony at the California Board hearings and reported the loss of Plaintiff's medical staff privileges at PVHMC to the National Practitioner Data Bank. (See Id. at 32-33; Doc. No. 63 at 30.) Plaintiff is suing PVHMC California Hospital Defendants only in their individual capacity. (See Doc. No. 1 at 10.)
The sixth and final group of Defendants are San Antonio Community (“SAC”) Hospital, Donald M. Alpiner, and Nabil Koudsi, collectively referred to as “SAC California Hospital Defendants.”[15](See id. at 33-35.) Plaintiff advances wide-ranging claims that SAC Hospital “is heavily involved in kickbacks and bribery” and terminated him to re-hire physicians who “performed unnecessary surgeries which increased revenue for the hospital.” (Id. at 34.) He further alleges that SAC Hospital offered “false testimony by its employee Stewart that Mir had planted [an] ‘Admission Note' into the medical records of SAC hospital” and also conspired with the Pennsylvania Board to revoke his Pennsylvania medical license. (Id.) Plaintiff is suing each of these Defendants in their individual capacity. (See id. at 11.)
Before the Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 13, 30, 31, 36, 42). On September 10, 2018, the Court placed this case in suspense until it rendered a decision on the Motions. (Doc. No. 86.) Today, the Court renders such a decision.
Plaintiff advances federal and state causes of action against defendants who either are past and current medical board members or affiliated with medical organizations. While Plaintiff has sued many members of the state medical boards in Pennsylvania, New York, and California in their individual and official capacities, he has not named as defendants the respective medical boards themselves. But for reasons stated below, this omission is...
To continue reading
Request your trial