Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Center
| Decision Date | 08 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 04 Civ. 7594 VM AJP.,04 Civ. 7594 VM AJP. |
| Citation | 430 F.Supp.2d 279 |
| Parties | Ansa QURESHI, Plaintiff v. ST. BARNABAS HOSPITAL CENTER and David Rubin, MD Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Jeffrey M. Bernbach, Bernbach Law Firm, White Plains, NY, for Plaintiff.
Terri L. Ross, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, New York City, Jason Laurence Bernbach, Bernbach Law Firm, White Plains, NY, for Counter Defendants.
DECISION AND AMENDED ORDER
Plaintiff Ansa Qureshi ("Qureshi") brought this action against St. Barnabas Hospital Center ("St. Barnabas" or "the Hospital") and David Rubin, M.D. ("Rubin") (together "Defendants"). Qureshi, a former resident in St. Barnabas's pediatrics residency program (the "Program"), initially brought claims for discrimination on account of her race, religion and national origin in violation of state law, and for defamation. St. Barnabas counterclaimed that Qureshi committed fraud in her dealings with the Hospital. The parties subsequently stipulated to the dismissal, with prejudice, of the discrimination claims. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim. Qureshi, a domiciliary of Illinois, invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction in this suit alleging exclusively state law claims against Defendants, citizens of New York, and has alleged in good faith that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.1
By Order dated March 29, 2006, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court there indicated that its findings, reasoning and conclusions would be set forth in a subsequent Decision and Order. Accordingly, this Opinion further explains the basis for the Court's March 29, 2006 ruling.
In July 2002, Qureshi entered the Program as a second-year resident. She had completed her first year of a pediatrics residency at the Medical College of Ohio. Rubin, Dr. David Fox ("Fox"), Dr. David Fagan ("Fagan"), and others supervised her work as a resident in the Program.
The Program received provisional accreditation from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education ("ACGME") in the fall of 2001. Per ACGME and American Board of Pediatrics ("ABP") guidelines, the Program must evaluate residents in a number of areas known as "core competencies," including medical knowledge and professionalism. Evaluations occur by way of written rotation evaluations completed by attending physicians supervising each resident during her rotation through a particular clinical area, and through meetings of the Pediatrics Education Committee ("PEC"), which convenes approximately monthly to discuss residents' progress and performance and documents its discussions in meeting minutes.
The parties dispute the quality of Qureshi's performance in the Program, and argue extensively about the significance of the documentation, in both rotation evaluations and PEC minutes, of her performance. Qureshi recounts a few isolated incidents of lateness or inattentiveness to work responsibilities (such as not answering a page or an email in a timely fashion), which were quickly addressed, corrected, and never mentioned again either in verbal warnings or in her rotation evaluations or other written reviews. Defendants, on the other hand, recount a mounting concern about Qureshi's professionalism, based on chronic tardiness, emotional outbursts, and indications of instability in her personal life. Qureshi also avers that other residents had more severe tardiness problems, for which they were placed on probation. Further, Qureshi disputes any concern on the part of Program staff about her emotional state and demeanor at work, since this was never mentioned to her either verbally or in writing, she was allowed to continue treating patients, and she was not referred to the Hospital's employee assistance program, which was charged, according to Qureshi, with providing assistance to physicians with emotional problems. Further, Qureshi consistently received satisfactory to exemplary rotation evaluations and semi-annual reviews.
By the spring of 2003, Qureshi began to complain about her work schedule and expressed an interest in leaving the Program. In the summer of 2003, after Qureshi had completed a year in the Program, she took a 12-week leave of absence. The parties dispute the reasons for this leave and the terms on which it was arranged. The parties agree that Rubin suggested that Qureshi take the leave. Qureshi returned to the program as a third-year resident after the 12-week leave.
According to Defendants, Qureshi's Program supervisors again began to have concerns about her professionalism by the beginning of 2004. Qureshi denies this. Part of her supervisors' concern was apparently based on Qureshi's alleged failure to start research on a required research project by the middle of her third year of residency. Qureshi avers that her supervisors had evaluated her progress toward completion of this project as satisfactory, and that Rubin, Fagan, and Fox were well aware of the satisfactory state of her progress.
In January 2004, Program staff received a voicemail message from someone identifying herself as Mrs. Omar, who reported that she had a restraining order against Qureshi. Fagan met with Qureshi about this incident, and Qureshi explained that Mrs. Omar was her former landlord, denied the existence of any restraining order, and submitted a written explanation of the events leading up to the voicemail message. While Qureshi disputes the Defendants' characterization of the written explanation, it indicates that Qureshi's housing situation was so unstable that she could not receive mail there, and that the arrangement she had made for the receipt of her mail, including responses to fellowship applications, was also unstable. It also indicates that she had no telephone service at home.
In February 2004, Qureshi and Dr. Marlon Ali ("Ali"), then the chief resident, discussed the time off Qureshi was requesting to prepare for a fellowship interview. Although the parties dispute the details of this conversation, they agree that Ali told Qureshi she should reconsider her career choice, and Qureshi began to cry. In February or March of 2004, Qureshi requested time off to attend a hearing at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority regarding an incident in which she allegedly improperly entered the subway.
At the February 20, 2004 PEC meeting, the PEC mandated the following for Qureshi: 1) timely responses to pages; 2) regular attention to email; 3) progress on her research project; 4) proof of participation in counseling.
The parties dispute whether Qureshi was having problems in these areas. Specifically, Qureshi denies that there was any indication that she was in need of counseling or that Program staff took any actions they would be expected to take with respect to a resident having any problem or condition that would require counseling. Indeed, Rubin continued to give positive fellowship recommendations about Qureshi during this time. However, the parties do not dispute that these mandates were issued and that Qureshi was informed of them.
At some point shortly before or after the February 20, 2004 PEC meeting, Qureshi informed Program staff that she was dissatisfied and wished to leave the Program. In the weeks following that meeting, Qureshi had a number of meetings with Program staff. The content of those meetings is largely disputed, although the parties agree that Qureshi was told during these meetings that as of that point, she was not being failed.
Qureshi resigned from the Program on March 29, 2004, having completed six months of her third year of residency. According to Qureshi, she resigned because she believed that she would receive a failing grade from Rubin. The Program did in fact rate her "unsatisfactory" in the core competency of professionalism, due to her failure to address what staff perceived as deficiencies in professionalism in the manner outlined by the Program in the February 20, 2004 PEC meeting.
Qureshi alleges four instances of defamation, one of which comprises several publication incidents that are materially identical for purposes of analysis.
First, at a meeting with Qureshi's coworkers following her departure, Rubin informed these co-workers that Qureshi had left for "personal reasons." Second, apparently in the hope that Qureshi's family might help her address the problems Rubin perceived, Rubin contacted Qureshi's father by telephone and informed her that Qureshi had left the Program, that she was feeling sad and that she needed therapy. The parties dispute whether this was Rubin's personal or professional opinion.
Third, Rubin submitted two letters to Dr. Gail McGuinness, Senior Vice President of the ABP, along with forms entitled "Resident Incomplete Training Information" which a residency program is required to submit when a resident leaves a program before its completion. The April 16 Letter stated in part
there have been ongoing problems noted in Professionalism. Dr. Qureshi tried to address these issues with a leave of absence from this program from July 1, 2003-October 1, 2003. Unfortunately, ongoing issues related to Professionalism have raised questions regarding Dr. Qureshi's competence. Furthermore, Dr. Qureshi refused to consider the strong recommendation of the Department of Pediatrics Education Committee that she seek professional mental health therapy for issues, which were negatively affecting her responsibilities as a resident. It is for this reason that she has received an "Unsatisfactory" for professionalism.
(April 16 Letter.) The April 23 Letter reiterated the above-quoted passage almost verbatim with the exception of the last sentence, adding:
This lack of insight into her problems was most troubling to the Committee and contributed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendricks v. Cnty. of Oneida
...as defamation." Lan Sang v. Ming Hai, — F. Supp. 2d —, —, 2013 WL 3215458, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Ctr., 430 F. Supp. 2d 279, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)) (citing Gross v. New York Times Co., 623 N.E.2d 1163, 82 N.Y.2d 146, 151, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813 (N.Y.1993))). Se......
-
Boehner v. Heise
...2008)). The interest need not be of a legal nature, as it can also be of a moral or social character. See Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Ctr., 430 F.Supp.2d 279, 290-291 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (citing Stukuls v. State, 42 N.Y.2d 272, 397 N.Y.S.2d 740, 366 N.E.2d 829 (1977)). Courts recognize a commo......
-
Sang v. Ming Hai & Law Offices of Ming Hai, P.C.
...not ‘reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning’ are not actionable.” Biro, 883 F.Supp.2d at 457 (citing Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Ctr., 430 F.Supp.2d 279, 287 (S.D.N.Y.2006)). Allegedly defamatory statements should be construed “as they would be commonly understood ... in the context......
-
Cummins v. Suntrust Capital Markets, Inc.
...domicile, and the place from which publication of the allegedly defamatory statements occurred." Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Ctr., 430 F.Supp.2d 279, 286 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). In this case, the plaintiff's home state is Texas (Compl. ¶ 3), the plaintiff represents that his employer, Cyber......