Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp.

• Decision Date: 03 July 2013
• Docket Number: No. 31,653.,31,653.
• Citation: 314 P.3d 243
• Parties: Emre YEDIDAG, M.D., Plaintiff–Appellee, v. ROSWELL CLINIC CORP., and Roswell Hospital Corp., Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

314 P.3d 243

Emre YEDIDAG, M.D., Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.ROSWELL CLINIC CORP., and Roswell Hospital Corp., Defendants–Appellants.

No. 31,653.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

July 3, 2013.

Tucker Law Firm, P.C., Steven L. Tucker, Law Office of Stephen Durkovich, Stephen G. Durkovich, Santa Fe, NM, Bauman, Dow & León, Mark C. Dow, Simone M. Seiler, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.

Kemp Smith LLP, Ken Slavin, Clara B. Burns, Shelly W. Rivas, El Paso, TX, for Appellants.

OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1} Plaintiff–Appellee Dr. Emre Yedidag was terminated from his position as a general surgeon by his employer Defendants–Appellants Roswell Clinic Corporation and Roswell Hospital Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center (collectively, Eastern). Dr. Yedidag's termination occurred within days after he participated in an internal hospital surgical peer review meeting that included review of surgical care provided by one of Dr. Yedidag's colleagues at Eastern. Following the peer review meeting, two Eastern employees who were present at the meeting disclosed to Eastern administrators their belief that Dr. Yedidag had engaged in unprofessional and aggressive behavior at the peer review meeting. Dr. Yedidag filed suit against Eastern following his termination, alleging that he was fired as a result of his participation in the peer review meeting. The jury determined that Eastern violated the New Mexico Review Organization Immunity Act (the ROIA), NMSA 1978, §§ 41–9–1 to –7 (1979, as amended through 2011), and breached an implied promise in Dr. Yedidag's employment agreement that he would not face adverse employment consequences as a result of his participation in the hospital's peer review process.

{2} Eastern's primary argument on appeal is that the district court erred in allowing Dr. Yedidag to bring a private cause of action under the ROIA. Eastern also raises arguments regarding the propriety of the implied promise contractual cause of action, the jury's award of punitive damages, the jury polling process, the admission of medical evidence at trial, and the award of attorney fees. As a matter of first impression, we hold that a member of a peer review organization can bring a private cause of action for an alleged violation of the ROIA's confidentiality provision, Section 41–9–5. We also conclude that the district court did not err with respect to Eastern's remaining arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the jury verdict.

BACKGROUNDA. The ROIA

{3} Because this appeal raises issues regarding the application of the ROIA in a civil action, we turn first to provide some background on the ROIA. Enacted by the Legislature in 1979, the ROIA “establishe[s] a comprehensive scheme of regulation of hospital peer review proceedings, including the scope of immunity available to members of a review organization” and the confidentiality of the records of review organizations. Leyba v. Renger, 114 N.M. 686, 687, 845 P.2d 780, 781 (1992); see also Sw. Cmty. Health Servs. v. Smith, 107 N.M. 196, 198, 755 P.2d 40, 42 (1988) (recognizing that the “ROIA establishes a medical peer review process to promote the improvement of health care in New Mexico”). Under the ROIA, hospital review organizations are limited in membership to “health care providers and staff, except where otherwise provided for by state or federal law,” and are tasked with gathering and reviewing information relating to the care and treatment of patients for eight enumerated purposes. See § 41–9–2(E).

{4} The ROIA grants qualified immunity to members of review organizations and to individuals who provide information to review organizations. See § 41–9–4 (providing that members of review organizations shall not be liable “for damages or other relief in any action brought by a person or persons whose activities have been or are being scrutinized or reviewed by a review organization ... unless the performance of such duty, function or activity was done with malice toward the person affected thereby”); see also § 41–9–3 (stating that “[n]o person providing information to a review organization shall be subject to any action for damages or other relief ... unless such information is false and the person providing such information knew or had reason to believe such information was false”); Leyba, 114 N.M. at 687–88, 845 P.2d at 781–82 (holding that the ROIA establishes qualified immunity).

{5} Of particular relevance to this case is Section 41–9–5, which deals with the confidentialityof review organization meetings. Section 41–9–5(A) provides that

all data and information acquired by a review organization in the exercise of its duties and functions shall be held in confidence and shall not be disclosed to anyone except to the extent necessary to carry out one or more of the purposes of the review organization or in a judicial appeal from the action of the review organization. No person described in Section 41–9–4 [of the ROIA] shall disclose what transpired at a meeting of a review organization except to the extent necessary to carry out one or more of the purposes of the review organization, in a judicial appeal from the action of the review organization or when subpoenaed by the New Mexico medical board.

(Emphasis added.) As we discuss in later sections of this Opinion, this appeal involves claims by Dr. Yedidag that Eastern employees allegedly violated Section 41–9–5 by disclosing what transpired at a peer review meeting and that, as a result of Eastern's alleged violation of the ROIA, Dr. Yedidag faced adverse employment consequences and suffered damages.

B. Case History

{6} Dr. Yedidag began working as a general surgeon for Eastern on December 5, 2005, and was terminated from his position nearly eleven months later on November 17, 2006. Two days prior to his termination, Dr. Yedidag attended and participated in a meeting of the Surgical Performance Improvement Committee at Eastern (the peer review meeting). According to documents in the record before this Court on appeal, the meeting was attended by five physicians, including Dr. Yedidag and the colleague whose surgical care and treatment of a patient would eventually be discussed at the peer review meeting. Also present at the meeting were four members of Eastern's administration and management staff, including Sara Williamson and Barbara Harned. During the peer review meeting, Dr. Yedidag participated in the review of his colleague's surgical care and treatment of a patient. Since the physician whose case was under review was also present at the peer review meeting, Dr. Yedidag questioned the physician regarding the surgical treatment given and the events that led to the patient's death. At the conclusion of the meeting, the peer review members requested that the case be sent for external review by a general surgeon.

{7} Immediately after the peer review meeting ended, members of Eastern's administration and management staff who were present at the meeting, including Sara Williamson, reported to Rich Robinson, Eastern's CEO, and Michael Kueker, Dr. Yedidag's immediate supervisor, that Dr. Yedidag had engaged in unprofessional and aggressive behavior at the peer review meeting. At trial, Keuker testified that he was told that Dr. Yedidag had verbally attacked the colleague whose case was under review at the meeting, and Sara Williamson testified that she told Eastern administrators that Dr. Yedidag had engaged in extremely disruptive behavior at the peer review meeting.

{8} The next day, Kueker met with Dr. Yedidag to suspend him from his position. On November 17, 2006, Dr. Yedidag received a letter from Eastern terminating his employment. The letter did not mention the events of the peer review meeting and instead stated that Dr. Yedidag's termination was pursuant to Paragraphs 10.1(j), 10.1(k), and 10.1(m) of Dr. Yedidag's employment agreement with Eastern and was a result of his “continued unprofessional behavior and language” and “continued disruptive behavior.” These provisions of the employment agreement provided for immediate termination based upon:

(j) [Eastern's] determination that [Dr. Yedidag's] continued employment would pose an unreasonable risk of harm to patients or others or would adversely affect the confidence of the public in the services provided by [Eastern];

(k) [Eastern's] determination that [Dr. Yedidag] has engaged in gross insubordination or gross dereliction of duty;

....

(m) conduct by [Dr. Yedidag] which is reasonably considered by [Eastern] to be unethical, unprofessional, fraudulent, unlawful,or adverse to the interest, reputation or business of [Eastern.]

{9} On January 24, 2007, Dr. Yedidag filed an eight-count civil complaint against Eastern seeking monetary damages and other relief as a result of his termination. An amended complaint later filed by Dr. Yedidag consisted of the following specific causes of action: fraud in the peer review process; violation of the ROIA's confidentiality provision; breach of Dr. Yedidag's employment agreement with Eastern; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; retaliatory discharge; civil conspiracy; and prima facie tort. In response to Dr. Yedidag's lawsuit, Eastern took the position throughout the proceedings below that Dr. Yedidag was terminated for cause pursuant to his employment agreement with Eastern due to his unprofessional conduct.

{10} At trial, the claims that were submitted to the jury pertinent to disposition of this appeal were: (1) violation of the ROIA, and (2) breach of implied promises in Dr. Yedidag's employment agreement with Eastern. With regard to the ROIA claim, the jury was instructed to determine whether Eastern “breach[ed] the confidentiality requirement of [the ROIA] through its disclosure of Dr. Yedidag's actions at the ... peer review ... meeting by Sara Williamson to Eastern's CEO and Eastern's Physician Practice Coordinator, who were not members or participants in the ... peer review [meeting].”...