Stolpner v. N.Y. Univ. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 16-cv-997(KAM)

• Decision Date: 29 September 2018
• Docket Number: 16-cv-997(KAM)
• Parties: DENNIS STOLPNER, M.D., Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

DENNIS STOLPNER, M.D., Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

16-cv-997(KAM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 29, 2018

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MATSUMOTO, United States District Court Judge

Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on February 29, 2016, alleging that his termination from the residency program at Lutheran Medical Center ("LMC") violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. ("ADA"), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADAAA"), the New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law §§ 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL") and the New York City Human Rights Law, Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL") because he was "regarded as" disabled.

Defendant, LMC, filed its answer on April 1, 2016 and on February 16, 2018, moved for summary judgment. The Court has considered the parties' submissions (ECF Nos. 26-37) in support of and in opposition to defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds that under the well-established McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework, plaintiff fails to present evidence to create a triable issue of material fact or to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability or perceived disability. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, plaintiff was able to establish his prima facie case, defendant has met its burden of coming forward with undisputed evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's dismissal and plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons provided by LMC were pretextual. As such, the court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment and the complaint is dismissed as set forth herein.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. PLAINTIFF'S PGY-1 YEAR AT LICH

Based on the record before the court, the following facts are not in dispute unless otherwise noted. Plaintiff began his Obstetrics and Gynecology ("OB/GYN") residency at Long Island College Hospital ("LICH") in 2012. After LICH lost its accreditation at the end of the academic year, plaintiff applied to transfer to LMC as a second-year resident or "PGY-2." (JA(1)-010; Compl. ¶ 12.) Dr. Fitzpatrick, chairman of the OB/GYN department at LMC, interviewed plaintiff in June 2013, and LMC accepted plaintiffto the program shortly thereafter. (JA(2)-018 - JA(2)-022.) Dr. Fitzpatrick interviewed plaintiff for 30-60 minutes and rated him at a four out of five for professionalism, accountability, and resiliency, with an overall rating of a three out of five. (JA(2)-019 - JA(2)-021.) After plaintiff's residency began on June 30, 2013, the LICH Program Director submitted a residency verification form to LMC recommending plaintiff for the transfer "with reservations," stating:

[Dr. Stolpner] satisfactorily completed the required rotations for his complete PGY1 year of training 2012-2013. However, cumulative evaluation scores for completed rotations for the year were marginal in each of the six competencies. If he had been able to continue in the residency program ... at LICH, our Education Committee recommended continued monitored performance with a three-month limited opportunity to assure performance satisfactory at the PGY2 level.

(Def. 56.1 at ¶ 8 (citing ECF No. 29, Briton Aff., Ex. A, Def. Ex. 1)¹; see also JA(2)-022.) Plaintiff was aware that LICH recommended continued monitoring and did not allege that the Program Director at LICH perceived him as mentally disabled. (JA(2)-001.) Plaintiff's evaluations from LICH were mixed. Plaintiff received a largely positive review from one supervisor who provided grades of "Pass", "High Pass" and Honors" for plaintiff. (See ECF No. 32, Menken Decl., Ex 2.) For his OB/GYN grade, plaintiff excelled in "historyand interviewing skills, physical examination skills, knowledge, data interpretation...professionalism in patient care. (Id.) The reviewer also note, "[h]e received a grade of pass for the clinical component[,] . . . was always involved while on call[,] . . . improved during the rotation with increasing experience[,] . . . was easy to work with and had excellent response to feedback. (Id.)

However, the negative evaluations from practitioners who worked with plaintiff at LICH did not support the foregoing narrative. Plaintiff's record from his time at LICH contained negative evaluations by six different physicians who worked with plaintiff. He was perceived as having a low base of knowledge, an unwillingness to learn, and raised serious concerns about his honesty and reliability when caring for patients and documenting their conditions. (Def. 56.1 at ¶ 10.) LMC received an evaluation summary from LICH, (Def. Ex. A-2), which included the comments from physicians at LICH, among them:

• Dr. Gopika Are: "incomplete history and physical exam"; "needs improvement in all of the components"; "no initiation [sic] to prepare for lectures and thus unable to participate in didactics. Multiple attempts were made, instructions given for correct Patient Data entry and medical records etc. but no improvement. Interpersonal communication skills need to be the first in the priority of improvement, especially in patient care and safety"; "basic medical knowledge needs improvement. He has to come up with a method by which he can remember and apply whatever is taught to him because he is unable to execute simple tasks after several attempts of teaching."

• Dr. Judith Weinstock: "has 0 base of gyn knowledge.

Looked at me quizzically when I use the word anovulatory. My daughter, who is a musician, knows more basic gyn than he does"; "very sweet guy, but barely able to communicate with co-workers or patients"; "trying to improve his performance, but is so far back it is difficult to believe he will be able to catch up"; "I am not sure what this resident is doing on a gyn service"; "this resident started knowing less obgyn than any resident I have seen in 20 years. He has shown increase in medical knowledge base, but seems to lack obgyn medical sensitivity and, in general, appears lost"; "medical knowledge base has improved, but has problems applying this to clinical medicine"; "very strange affect and has problems with interpersonal relationships"; "very problematic resident. Doesn't seem to hear anything one has to say. One needs to check everything he says for accuracy and to make sure he has followed through. Can be nasty to residents who are trying to teach him"; "disorganized and disorganizing with complete lack of interpersonal skills"; "does not know how to think like an Ob Gyn. Cannot prioritize information, so a final judgment or diagnosis can be reached"; "seems incapable of applying learned info to patient care"; "nice to patients, on time to clinic, but has lied to me in reference to patients' test results if he does not know the answer. One must check everything he does"; "lacks insight into his own failures"; "this resident should not be in an ObGyn residency. He will lie, rather than say, 'I don't know' this will eventually pose a risk to patient care when his seniors are no longer checking everything he does or says".

• Dr. Byron Myers: "not spontaneously communicative"; "has indicated a series of gaps in his knowledge of the specialty"; "insensitive to patient[']s requests and needs; disrespectful to his colleagues at all levels. At times has demonstrated very irresponsible behavior"; "his knowledge in ob/gyn needs a complete overhaul"; "does not [have] much of a rapport with the other residents and other members of the medical team. He is distant and detached"; "he is not [sic] under-performing even for a new pgy-1. His personality does not help that much either. Maybe this is not his 'calling.'"

• Dr. Potacia Francis: "Dr. Stolpner appears to be completely unprepared for this Residency. He wasadvised how to quickly catchup on basics of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He demonstrates no enthusiasm or initiative"; "always fail to include an assessment and plan in his evaluations"; "is unsure of himself..."; "Very low fund of knowledge that he is aware of"; "Dr. Stolpner either is unwilling or unable to learn and develop as a physician. He presents patients without obtaining a complete history, physical examination or formulating an assessment or plan"; "requires constant supervision and redirection"; "noted attempts at increasing his fund of knowledge. However he has difficulty applying it clinically"; "observed to have difficulty communicating with his team". . . . "is respectful and cordial, but fails to listen to suggested approach to patient care. He doesn't seem to learn from previous encounters ...."; "Makes very little effort to work independently so as to provide a complete evaluation and plan. Instead he seem[s] to want direction at every step..

• Dr. Dawnette Lewis: "lots of room for improvement. Does not listen to his senior residents, does not respond to constructive criticism."

(Id.) When confronted with some of the negative evaluations at deposition, plaintiff asserted that the doctors at LICH only felt he needed assistance with a general knowledge base. (See JA(1)-004.) Plaintiff was unable to explain the negative observations made by Dr. Weinstock as he claimed he never encountered Dr. Weinstock during patient care, and could not speak to whether the negative statements from Dr. Myers and Dr. Francis were justified. (Def. 56.1 at ¶ 11 (citing (JA(1)-006 -JA(1)-009).) Although plaintiff objects on relevance grounds to the critiques from LICH being considered, he does not deny the factual accuracy of the reviews. (ECF No. 31, Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's 56.1 Statement (Pl. 56.1"), at ¶¶10-11.)

B. PLAINTIFF'S PGY-2 YEAR AT LMC

Plaintiff's PGY-2 year commenced at LMC on or about June 30, 2013, and extended until June 2014. During this time, attending physicians and other hospital staff submitted pointed written critiques of plaintiff's performance as a resident. On ...