Moores v. Madvig

Filed 5/31/06 Moores v. Madvig CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In this case, plaintiff William Moores, M.D., appeals after a summary judgment for defendants Philip Madvig, M.D., Bruce Blumberg, M.D., William Strull, M.D., Keith Flachsbart, M.D., Douglas S. Grey, M.D., The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Moores's Employment with TPMG

Plaintiff William Moores is a cardiovascular surgeon who was employed by TPMG at the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in San Francisco. On September 28, 1998, following the report of an unexpectedly bad surgical outcome in one of his cases, Moores was placed on paid administrative leave by TPMG. Moores was notified that while on leave he would undergo a fitness for duty evaluation and a formal practice review. He was given some time to straighten out his professional affairs, and was banned from the hospital.

In accordance with the notice to Moores, an independent physician was selected to perform a focused review of Moores's practice. At the conclusion of that review, the expert issued a report and concluded that Moores should be removed from practice at Kaiser Foundation Hospital. Thereafter, Moores was notified that his termination would be recommended to the TPMG board of directors, and that effective November 30, 1998, he would be summarily suspended from employment without pay for disciplinary reasons.

II. Proceedings Related to Moores's Termination of Employment

Pursuant to hospital policies, Moores sought and obtained review by a judicial hearing panel of the decision to terminate his employment. That panel concluded unanimously that the summary suspension of Moores's hospital privileges, the recommendation to terminate his employment and the proposed termination of his staff and clinical privileges were all reasonable and warranted. Moores requested a review by the TPMG board of directors. The board of directors sustained Moores's summary suspension and termination. Moores then requested, and received, a review by the appellate review panel of the board of directors of Kaiser Foundation Hospital. Once again, the decision to terminate Moores's employment was upheld. Specifically, the appellate review panel rejected Moores's claims that there were procedural irregularities in the process used to terminate him, and that the decision to terminate was not supported by substantial evidence.

Moores challenged his termination with a petition for writ of mandate filed in the San Francisco Superior Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.[1] The court denied the writ, and found that Moores â€