Sood v. Univ. of Iowa, 3-1178 / 13-0870

• Decision Date: 26 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 3-1178 / 13-0870,3-1178 / 13-0870
• Parties: RAVI SOOD, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, and THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE STATE OF IOWA, Defendants-Appellees, and MICHAEL M. GRAHAM, Ph.D., M.D., As Director of Nuclear Medicine for the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, and Individually, Defendant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

RAVI SOOD, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, and THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE STATE OF IOWA, Defendants-Appellees,and MICHAEL M. GRAHAM, Ph.D., M.D., As Director of Nuclear Medicine

for the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, and Individually, Defendant.

No. 3-1178 / 13-0870

COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

Filed March 26, 2014

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Carl D. Baker, Judge.

Ravi Sood appeals the district court's ruling that his breach-of-contract claim against the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents for the State of Iowa is barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies. AFFIRMED.

Laura L. Folkerts and Chad A. Swanson of Dutton, Braun, Staack & Hellman, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and George A. Carroll and Jordan G. Esbrook, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.

Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.

DANILSON, C.J.

Dr. Ravi Sood appeals the district court's ruling dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his breach-of-contract claim against the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents for the State of Iowa. Finding no error in the court's conclusion that the claim involved covered agency action subject to exhaustion requirements of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

This case stems from events that occurred in 2008 and 2009. The following undisputed facts appear in the record.

In a letter dated July 14, 2008, the department of radiology of the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine offered Ravi Sood a "full-time non tenure-track appointment as a Visiting Associate for the period of one year beginning July 14, 2008" with an annual salary of $100,000. The letter also stated, "You will have full clinical privileges in Nuclear Medicine," and "your appointment may be renewed for one additional year." Sood accepted the offer on July 17, 2008.

On June 28, 2008, Sood applied for "initial" clinical privileges for University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics' (UIHC) radiology department. He began working at the University as a visiting associate in July 2008. On October 1, 2008, the University Hospital Advisory Committee granted Sood full clinical privileges "subject to the conditions specified in the Bylaws, Rules and Regulations of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and its Clinical Staff." According to the Bylaws, "[a]ll initial clinical privileges shall be provisional for the first threemonths"; and "[i]f . . . termination[ ] of clinical privileges is recommended, the recommendation shall be handled as provided in Section 6."

On October 28, 2008, Sood was informed by a letter authored by Michael M. Graham, Ph.D., M.D. (Director of Nuclear Medicine for the Carver College of Medicine at the University of Iowa) that Graham "propose[d] that we reduce your status to that of fellow without clinical privileges, although you will retain the title of 'clinical fellow' and current salary." The letter noted, "[W]e will not be renewing your appointment after June 30, 2009."

Also on October 28, Dr. Graham told Nancy Harney of human resources that he no longer wanted Sood to have clinical privileges. Harney emailed Graham's request to Deb Strabala in the clinical staff office, July Harland in business office, and Tyler Artz, the director of the radiology department, that they "need[ed] to make a change in the status of Ravi Sood, M.D., effective immediately."

In a letter dated November 3, Sood was informed that his "appointment in the Department of Radiology ended on October 31, 2008. In accord with the 'Bylaws of the [UIHC] and its Clinical Staff,' your clinical staff membership and privileges at the [UIHC] also end on the same date."

On November 26, 2008, Sood again applied for "initial" clinical privileges for the UIHC radiology department, which were granted by the University Hospital Advisory Committee on January 7, 2009. Sood's employment with the University ended June 30, 2009. Sometime in June 2009, Sood learned that an application he had submitted for employment elsewhere was no longer being processed due to a "gap" in his privileges.

On January 22, 2010, Sood filed a petition against the University of Iowa, the Board of Regents, and Dr. Graham,¹ alleging three counts: breach of contract, violation of procedural due process, and violation of Iowa Code section 91A.6 (2009) (a provision of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law).² The breach of contract claim alleged the University had violated the written contract of employment and as a result Sood had suffered damages.

With respect to the breach of contract, Sood asserted four specific breaches of the contract at issue here: Sood had not been provided full-time employment; his status with billing privileges had been changed; he had not been paid the promised annual salary of $100,000; he was not provided full clinical privileges; and the defendants had not followed the process and procedures outlined in the bylaws. In their answer, the defendants raised as one of their affirmative defenses the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On March 1, 2013,³ the University filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to Sood's breach-of-contract count. The University asserted the matters involved in the breach-of-contract count constitute "agency action" within the meaning of Iowa Code chapter 17A (Iowa Administrative Procedure Act), and that pursuant to Iowa Code section 262.7(1), Sood's employment was governed by the Iowa Board of Regents,⁴ which had adopted administrative rules and procedures governing personnel administration. See 681 Iowa Admin. Codech. 3. The University argued that because Sood's fitness to be employed at the UIHC was within the board's administrative purview, Sood's remedy for his breach-of-contract claim was through agency action.

Sood resisted, contending chapter 17A does not apply to his breach-of-contract claim for failure to pay wages because the claim does not involve an issue normally within the Regents' expertise. He also argued there are no available administrative remedies with respect to clinical privileges because the Bylaws explicitly remove clinical privileges from the grievance procedures of Section III-29.6 of the University's operations manual.⁵

The district court ruled:

There do not appear to be any disputed facts; rather, the question before the Court is a purely legal one. Is Plaintiff [Sood] required to exhaust administrative remedies regarding his breach of contract claim? The Court concludes the answer to this question isyes. The agency action in this case was the decision to terminate Dr. Sood's clinical privileges and reduce his pay. This action was taken based upon a perceived below-standard job performance. Assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Graham failed to follow hospital rules and regulations in doing so, his action falls within "the performance of an agency duty or the failure to do so." Iowa Code Section 17A.2([2]). This case is most like the Papadakis [v. Iowa State University of Science & Technology, 574 N.W.2d 258 (Iowa 1997),] case. As in Papadakis, the "personnel issues of the type involved in the present case have been made the subject of a prescribed administrative procedure undertaken in conformance with express statutory authorization." Papadakis, 574 N.W.2d at 260. The breach of contract claim stated by [Sood] pertains to his fitness to be employed at UIHC, and the Board has the right to oversee [Sood's] appointment and compensation. The Court finds that this oversight includes review of the level of care to be exercised by [Sood] in his employment, as well as the clinical privileges afforded to [Sood]. [Sood's] remedy for his breach of contract claim is through agency action. This case is unlike Hornby [v. State, 559 N.W.2d 23 (Iowa 1997)], in that the action challenged in the case at bar involves Plaintiff's job performance, which is an area within the expertise of the Board of Regents.

Therefore, [Sood's] breach of contract claim shall be dismissed because Plaintiff has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him.

With respect to the parties' arguments regarding Plaintiff's right to grieve the employment decision, the Court concludes that because the clinical privileges afforded to Plaintiff were part of his employment contract, the alleged gap in those privileges upon which Plaintiff partially relies in stating his breach of contract claim also is a component of Plaintiff's employment that is within the expertise of the Board of Regents. Therefore, all issues relating to Plaintiff's clinical privileges also were subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement.

The district court entered summary judgment for the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents on the breach-of-contract count.

Sood filed a motion to enlarge or amend the partial summary judgment ruling, asserting in part that he had no administrative remedy because the Bylaws exempt the grievance procedure to claims about clinical privileges. The district court stated Sood was "correct in asserting that, because the bylaws,rules and regulations were not followed by Dr. Graham, other events did not occur," which included a failure to follow the process provided by the bylaws. The court ruled,

Dr. Sood was granted full clinical privileges in Nuclear Medicine when he was hired in 2008. The University's failure to follow the Article IV procedure is agency action as defined in Iowa Code section 17.A.2(9). The Defendants failed to act in accord with their own bylaws, rules and regulations with respect to Dr. Sood's clinical privileges. The termination of clinical privileges and the failure to follow the bylaws in doing so, bears "a discernible relationship to the statutory mandate of the agency as evidenced by express or implied statutory authorization." Papadakis v. lowa State University of Science and Technology,

...