Tucker v. Princeton Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n, CIVIL ACTION No. 1:19-00227
| Decision Date | 30 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 1:19-00227 |
| Parties | LORI TUCKER, Plaintiff, v. PRINCETON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
This case is grounded in plaintiff's allegation that she, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology ("OB/GYN"), was subjected to investigation and loss of hospital privileges after speaking out on the issue of abortion during the 2016 national election cycle. According to the allegations in the Amended Complaint, which are taken as true at this stage in the proceedings, plaintiff Lori Tucker is a board-certified OB/GYN physician licensed to practice medicine in West Virginia and Ohio. See Amended Complaint at ¶ 4 (ECF No. 18). In 2002, Dr. Tucker began practicing medicine in West Virginia and had hospital and/or staff privileges at Princeton Community Hospital Association, Inc. ("PCH") starting in 2005. See id. at ¶¶ 13-15. Jeffrey Lilley, Frank Sinicrope, Joe C. Ellington, Jr., Wallace Horne, Wesley L. Asbury, Marshall C. Long, Christopher Daniel, Jeffrey T. Gee, Eric S. Hopkins, Amos Lane, Brandon Lingenfelter, Thomas Charles Martin, Jr., Sherri B. Ross, and Todd Smith are alleged to be employees or agents of PCH and "at all times relevant to this action" members of PCH's Medical Executive Committee ("MEC"). Id. at ¶ 7.
Dr. Tucker alleges that "[d]uring the 2016 national election cycle, and particularly during the campaign for President of the United States, [she] became concerned that facts about abortion were being misrepresented in the media." Id. at ¶ 21. In order "to correct misperceptions that she had identified in the national debate over abortion", Dr. Tucker recorded and published a video that was published on Facebook and "quickly went viral." Id. at ¶¶ 23 and 24.
Eric Porterfield, the minister of Rich Creek Baptist Church in Spanishburg, West Virginia and founder of Blind Faith Ministries, is an outspoken opponent of abortion. See id. at ¶ 8. After becoming aware of Dr. Tucker's video, "Porterfield contacted Tucker and demanded that she retract the video and repent for the views she expressed in it." Id. at ¶ 26. When Dr. Tucker refused to do so, "Porterfield threatened that Tucker would see wrath come against her because of her position on abortion." Id. at ¶ 28. "Porterfield exercised considerable influence in the Princeton and surrounding areas [and] has since been elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates." Id. at ¶ 31. Allegedly, Porterfield communicated to individualsassociated with PCH "his desire to destroy Tucker's medical practice, have her removed from her service at the Hospital, and otherwise suffer what he determined should be the consequences of her views on abortion." Id. at ¶ 30.
Dr. Tucker also appeared on national television advocating for the use of suboxone in treating pregnant women suffering from addiction. See id. at ¶¶ 32-33. According to Dr. Tucker, PCH did not support the use of suboxone to treat expectant mothers and newborns. See id. at ¶ 34.
On March 29, 2017, Dr. Tucker was called to a meeting with Dr. Wesley Asbury, PCH's Chief of Staff, and Dr. Wallace Horne, PCH's Chief Medical Officer and Vice President of Medical Affairs. See id. at ¶ 36. "Dr. Asbury and Dr. Horne sought to restrict Dr. Tucker from performing any surgical procedures, but agreed she could continue to perform C-sections and outpatient surgeries other than hysterectomies or other major surgical procedures." Id. at ¶ 37. According to Dr. Tucker, "[n]o explanation was provided, deficiencies explained, or correction plan provided." Id.
However, in the next paragraph of her complaint, Dr. Tucker states that Dr. Asbury presented her with a letter listing more than 30 cases which were being referred for peer review. See id. at ¶ 39. Of those 30 cases, Dr. Tucker contends that more than half of those Id. Dr. Tucker alleges that "[a]dditional reviews beyond that conducted during credentialing and recredentialing was outside the normal practice" at PCH. Id.
Ultimately, documentation for twelve of Dr. Tucker's cases was sent for a peer review by the Greeley Company. See id. at ¶ 40. Dr. Tucker maintains that the information sent to Greeley was "incomplete, false, and misleading" and "included treatment rendered by providers other than Tucker". Id. at ¶ 41. Greeley rendered an adverse peer review of Dr. Tucker based solely on the information provided by PCH. See id. at ¶ 45.
As a result of the adverse peer review, Dr. Tucker was prohibited from performing any surgeries at PCH and "was told that there were persons who never wanted her to practice medicine again." Id. at ¶ 46. According to Dr. Tucker, PCH's bylaws "dictated that an investigation be undertaken" but that one never occurred. Id. at ¶ 47.
Dr. Tucker alleges that the Hospital Defendants "made, or caused to be made, false and adverse reports about [her] to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB)."1 Id. at ¶ 49. Thosereports to the NPDB "damaged Dr. Tucker in her professional reputation, resulted in diminished professional opportunities for her, and led to a false conclusion that Dr. Tucker's complication rate for OB/GYN care was above the national average, when, in fact, it was below the national average." Id. at ¶ 50.
Dr. Tucker alleges that the Hospital Defendants "prepared a letter recommending to the Hospital Board of Directors that terms be imposed upon Dr. Tucker substantially restricting her surgical privileges and allowing her to only perform unrestricted vaginal deliveries". Id. at ¶ 54. That letter was never delivered; however, "[g]iven the impossible restrictions unreasonably placed on her by the Hospital Defendants, essentially prohibiting her from practicing medicine, Dr. Tucker left her position with the Hospital." Id. at ¶ 57. Afterwards, the Hospital Defendants reported to the NPDB the recommendations that had been included in its letter to the Board which, according to Dr. Tucker, was improper under the NPDB's procedures and policies. See id. at ¶¶ 58-61.
Dr. Tucker also alleges that the Hospital Defendants sent an adverse report to the West Virginia Osteopathic Board of Medicine which was based upon the unreliable Greeley adverse peer review.See id. at ¶¶ 63-64. "In response to the adverse report, Dr. Tucker was forced to defend herself before the Osteopathic Board incurring substantial cost and attorney's fees." Id. at ¶ 65.
Thereafter, Dr. Tucker was hired by the Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) in Beckley, West Virginia, as its Chief of Staff. See id. at ¶ 66. Because of the reports made to the NPDB, however, VAMC rescinded its offer to hire Dr. Tucker as Chief of Staff. See id. at ¶ 68. According to Dr. Tucker, "[d]efendants had another motive for seeking to prevent [her] from being the Chief of Staff at the VAMC: PCH had been in talks with the VAMC to become a primary referral hospital for the VAMC in which it would receive approximately 40% of all referrals for treatment from the VAMC." Id. at ¶ 70. This referral arrangement would result in "a great infusion of patients and therefore money into PCH." Id. As Chief of Staff, Dr. Tucker would have to approve all referrals and "[g]iven how the Hospital Defendants had treated Dr. Tucker, they expected that if Dr. Tucker was Chief of Staff at the VAMC then she would not direct referrals to PCH." Id. at ¶ 72.
Ultimately, Dr. Tucker had to relocate to obtain employment resulting in "great financial loss." Id. at ¶¶ 75-76.
On March 28, 2019, Dr. Tucker filed a complaint against PCH and the City of Princeton alleging violations of her First and Fifth Amendment rights and asking for: 1) an award of damages tocompensate her for her loss of income, loss of her medical practice, and her emotional distress; 2) injunctive and declaratory relief directing defendants to correct misinformation previously reported to the NPDB, and 3) costs and attorney fees. See ECF No. 1.
On July 8, 2019, Dr. Tucker moved to amend her complaint. See ECF No. 10. That motion was granted and the Amended Complaint was filed on July 25, 2019. See ECF No. 18. Named as defendants are the City of Princeton, PCH, Jeffrey Lilley, Frank Sinicrope, Joe C. Ellington, Jr., Wallace Jennings Horne, Wesley L. Asbury, Marshall C. Long, Christopher Daniel. Jeffrey T. Gee, Eric S. Hopkins, Amos Lane, Brandon M. Lingenfelter, Thomas Charles Martin, Jr., Sherri B. Ross, Todd Smith, the National Practitioner Data Bank, and Eric Porterfield. The individual defendants, with the exception of Eric Porterfield, are all alleged to be members of the MEC and are referred to as the "MEC Defendants".2 Throughout the First Amended Complaint, the MEC Defendants, along with PCH and the City of Princeton are referred to as the "Hospital Defendants". The Amended Complaint includes the following counts:
See Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 78-115. The City of Princeton and defendants Lingenfelter, Smith, and Porterfield were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff. See ECF Nos. 19, 43, and 45.
Pending before the court are: 1) a motion to dismiss filed by the "hospital defendants"; 2) a motion to dismiss filed by the "individual defendants"; and 3) National...
To continue reading
Request your trial