Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GEORGE J. MADERA, M.D.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TAOS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., D/B/A HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL,
`BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL,
`MEDICAL STAFF OF HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, and
`JOHN DOES 1-10,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM BREACH OF CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECOMONIC RELATIONS,
`AND DEFAMATION
`
`Plaintiff George J. Madera, M.D., complains of Defendants as follows:
`
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff is a Board Certified general and interventional cardiologist who has over
`
`1.
`
`40 years of experience practicing medicine. He worked for Defendant Taos Health Systems, Inc.
`
`d/b/a Holy Cross Hospital as a locum tenens physician from December 3, 2018, until March 8,
`
`2019. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Taos Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Holy Cross Hospital (“Hospital”) is a
`
`New Mexico nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New Mexico.
`
`The Hospital maintains and operates medical institutions, including an accredited acute care
`
`general hospital known as Holy Cross Medical Center in Taos, New Mexico.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Board of Directors of Taos Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Holy Cross
`
`Hospital (“Board”) of the Hospital controls the business and affairs of the Hospital, including,
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`without limitation, establishing polices to guide the operation of the Hospital. All officers,
`
`practitioners, allied health professionals, employees and agents of the Hospital are subject to
`
`control, direction, and removal by the Board. The Board is responsible for final actions on all
`
`matters relating to medical staff appointments, clinical privileges, corrective action, and the
`
`Hospital’s medical staff bylaws. The Board is also responsible for ensuring that adverse
`
`recommendations regarding practitioners’ medical staff appointments, reappointments, and/or
`
`clinical privileges, be accomplished in accordance with the approved fair hearing plan then in
`
`effect at the Hospital.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Taos Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Holy Cross Hospital Medical Staff
`
`(“Hospital Medical Staff”) is an unincorporated legal entity comprised of the physicians and other
`
`practitioners who have been granted clinical privileges at the Hospital. The Hospital Medical Staff
`
`has the responsibility and authority to investigate and evaluate matters relating to medical staff
`
`appointment status, clinical privileges, and corrective action. The Hospital Medical Staff, through
`
`its appropriate officers and committees, is required to adopt and forward to either the Medical
`
`Executive Committee or the Joint Conference Committee specific written recommendations
`
`regarding medical staff appointment status, clinical privileges, and corrective action, along with
`
`appropriate supporting documentation that will allow the Hospital Medical Staff to make a
`
`recommendation to the Board.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants John Does 1-10 are members of the Hospital, the Board, the Hospital
`
`Medical Staff, the Medical Executive Committee, the Credentials Committee, and/or employees
`
`or agents of the Hospital, the Board, the Hospital Medical Staff, the Medical Executive Committee,
`
`and/or the Credentials Committee who were involved in the events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s
`
`claims as described herein. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued herein as John Does 1-10,
`
`and for that reason sues said Defendants, and each of them, by such fictious means.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`6.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, because there
`
`is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
`
`and costs.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of New Mexico under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)&(2).
`
`ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`Plaintiff was born in Los Angeles, California. He grew up poor.
`
`Plaintiff’s father emigrated to the United States at the age of 18 and worked as a
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`gardener in and around Beverly Hills. Plaintiff began working alongside his father at the age of
`
`five. Plaintiff learned the value of hard work through these early experiences.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff’s mother was born in Tasco, Arizona, an old railroad town. His mother
`
`helped teach him how to read and write. She got Plaintiff a library card when he was very young,
`
`and the library card changed his life when he began to read.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff worked hard in primary school. He was admitted to UCLA as an
`
`undergraduate student in 1963. Plaintiff’s studies at UCLA were interrupted by the Vietnam War.
`
`He was drafted into the United States Army in 1965 while he was working full-time and going to
`
`school part-time.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff was recommended, applied, and selected to Officer Candidate School,
`
`Infantry, in Fort Benning, Georgia, during the Vietnam War. He graduated second in his class and
`
`received orders which included Ranger School. Plaintiff received his Ranger Tab and was in
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`Special Operations throughout his military career. Plaintiff excelled in serving his country and
`
`earned a spot with the Special Forces as an Army Ranger while serving in Vietnam.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff returned to the United States after his military service and attended
`
`Stanford University to complete his undergraduate studies. He graduated from Stanford University
`
`in 1973. Plaintiff went on to complete medical school, a medical internship, and his medical
`
`residency at Stanford University.
`
`14.
`
`From approximately 1981 to 2019, Plaintiff practiced general and interventional
`
`cardiology at various hospitals across the country. He worked as an employed physician and as a
`
`locum tenens physician. Plaintiff has approximately 40 years of experience practicing general and
`
`interventional cardiology, and he has worked in dozens of health care institutions across the
`
`country.
`
`15.
`
`Over the last 20 years, Plaintiff has primarily worked as a locum tenens physician.
`
`He has completed approximately 35 separate locum assignments at approximately 20 different
`
`institutions during that time. Some of those assignments have been reoccurring assignments,
`
`meaning that the health care institution invited Plaintiff back for multiple assignments.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff has gone through the credentialing process at each institution where he has
`
`worked and for each locum assignment he has held. Plaintiff never had any trouble with the
`
`credentialing process. No state licensing bodies had ever taken action against Plaintiff’s medical
`
`licenses before the events giving rise to this lawsuit, and his clinical privileges had never been
`
`limited, revoked, or suspended. Prior to the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Plaintiff held medical
`
`licenses in twelve States.
`
`17.
`
`In the late summer of 2018, Plaintiff received a call from a recruiter named Bo
`
`Ehmke. Mr. Ehmke worked for a healthcare staffing agency named Delta Locum Tenens, LLC
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`(“DLT”). DLT works to place physicians in full-time and part-time assignments with hospitals
`
`and clinical care facilities throughout the United States. DLT had a staffing agreement in place
`
`with the Hospital in the late summer of 2018.
`
`18. Mr. Ehmke informed Plaintiff during the call that the Hospital’s only cardiologist,
`
`Geilan Ismail, M.D., planned to retire at the end of the year. As a result of Dr. Ismail’s upcoming
`
`retirement, the Hospital was looking to fill a locum tenens position in general cardiology.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff spoke to Dr. Ismail about the position over the phone. Dr. Ismail told
`
`Plaintiff at the end of the call that she would recommend him for the position. In late October of
`
`2018, Plaintiff decided to formally apply for the position at the Hospital. To do so, Plaintiff
`
`submitted various forms and documents to the Hospital between October and December of 2018.
`
`20.
`
`One of those documents, titled, “Acknowledgement of Receipt and Understanding
`
`of Appendix A and Appendix B of Holy Cross Hospital Peer Review Policy,” asked Plaintiff to
`
`acknowledge that he had read and understood the Hospital’s Peer Review Policy.
`
`21.
`
`The Acknowledgement also stated: “As per the Peer Review Policy, the
`
`requirement is to notify all involved practitioners of any and all cases as they come to review
`
`regardless of the degree of involvement or of any PSC finding. If you wish to opt out of this initial
`
`notification please indicate this by declining below.”
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff did not opt out of receiving notification of any and all cases as they came
`
`to review by the Hospital or Hospital Medical Staff.
`
`23.
`
`In another document completed during the credentialing process, Dr. Madera
`
`formally acknowledged that he had read and agreed to abide by the Hospital’s medical staff
`
`bylaws, rules and regulations, and applicable Hospital policies, which included the Hospital’s Peer
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`Review Policy, Fair Hearing Plan, and Credentialing and Privileging Plan (collectively referred to
`
`herein as the “Medical Staff Bylaws”).
`
`24.
`
`The Medical Staff Bylaws, rules and regulations, and applicable Hospital policies,
`
`including the policies and procedures incorporated therein, such as the Peer Review Policy, the
`
`Fair Hearing Plan, and the Credentialing and Privileging Plan, created a binding contract between
`
`Plaintiff and Defendants. Defendants had a duty to comply with the Medical Staff Bylaws,
`
`including the policies and procedures incorporated therein.
`
`25.
`
`Article IX of the Medical Staff Bylaws outlines the requirements for taking
`
`corrective action against practitioners who hold clinical privileges at the Hospital.
`
`26.
`
`Article XIV of the Medical Staff Bylaws sets forth the requirements governing
`
`formal hearings and appeals from those hearings.
`
`27.
`
`Article XIV states that “[a]dverse recommendations or actions on the following
`
`which involve the competence or professional conduct of a practitioner shall entitle the practitioner
`
`affected to an opportunity for a hearing: … revocation of clinical privileges.” [Article XIV,
`
`Medical Staff Bylaws, p. 22]
`
`28.
`
`Article XIV also states that the “Hospital shall promptly give written notice of the
`
`adverse recommendation or action to the practitioner[,]” and the “notice of adverse
`
`recommendation or action shall set forth a summary of the practitioner’s rights under these Hearing
`
`and Appeal Procedures and other information as may be required by law.” [Article XIV, Medical
`
`Staff Bylaws, p. 24]
`
`29.
`
`Article XIV requires the notice to state: that an adverse recommendation or action
`
`has been made or is proposed to be made; the reasons for the action or recommendation; that the
`
`practitioner has a right to request a hearing on the action or recommendation in accordance with
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`the Medical Staff Bylaws at any time within 30 days after receipt of the notice; that failure to
`
`request a hearing shall constitute a waiver of a right to a hearing; that if a hearing is requested on
`
`a timely basis, he or show will be given further notice stating the time, place and date of the
`
`hearing, and a list of witnesses, if any, expected to testify at that if the practitioner so requests in
`
`writing, he or she will be given reasonable access to relevant records, reports and other materials
`
`related to the adverse action on which the Medical Executive Committee or the Board, as the case
`
`may be, intends to rely and which are not otherwise privileged under law; and that the notice of
`
`adverse action or recommendation shall state that in the hearing, the practitioner has the right to
`
`representation by an attorney, physician or other person of his or her choice; to have a record made
`
`of the proceedings, copies of which may be obtained by the practitioner upon payment of one-half
`
`of any reasonable charges associated with the taking, preparation and transcribing of it; to call,
`
`examine and cross-examine witnesses; to present evidence determined to be relevant by the
`
`hearing officer or panel, regardless of its admissibility in a court of law; to submit a written
`
`statement at the close of the hearing; and upon completion of the hearing, to receive the written
`
`recommendation of the hearing officer or panel, including a statement of the basis for the
`
`recommendations. [Article XIV, Medical Staff Bylaws, pp. 24-25]
`
`30.
`
`Article XIV of the Medical Staff Bylaws further states that a “practitioner shall
`
`have 30 days following his or her receipt of notice of adverse action to request a hearing.” [Article
`
`XIV, Medical Staff Bylaws, p. 25]
`
`31.
`
`Article XIV of the Medical Staff Bylaws require that, “[w]ithin ten days after
`
`receipt of a request for a hearing, the Hospital shall schedule and arrange for a hearing[,]” and that,
`
`“[t]he Chief of Staff shall send a written notice to the practitioner of the place, time and date of the
`
`hearing at least 30 days in advance.” [Article XIV, Medical Staff Bylaws, p. 26]
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`32.
`
`Article XIV of the Medical Staff Bylaws go onto to set forth requirements regarding
`
`hearing procedure, conduct of the hearing, preparation of a hearing report, initiation of Board
`
`action, initiation of appellate review by the Board, appellate review prerequisites, appellate review
`
`procedure, appellate review hearing, the decision on appellate review, and the final decision by the
`
`Board. [Article XIV, Medical Staff Bylaws, pp. 26-29]
`
`33.
`
`Article XV of the Medical Staff Bylaws governs Data Bank and Self-Reporting.
`
`[Article XV, Medical Staff Bylaws, p. 30] Article XV requires the Hospital Medical Staff to
`
`“comply with the reporting requirements of law, including HCQIA [Health Care Quality
`
`Improvement Act], governing professional review actions.” [Article XV, Medical Staff Bylaws,
`
`p. 30]
`
`34.
`
`Article XV of the Medical Staff Bylaws also sets forth the requirements for
`
`reporting certain adverse actions against a practitioner’s clinical privileges to the New Mexico
`
`Medical Board, such as professional review actions that adversely affect the clinical privileges of
`
`a physician. [Article XIV, Medical Staff Bylaws, p. 31]
`
`35.
`
`Article XV of the Medical Staff Bylaws also refers to and incorporates the
`
`Hospital’s Credentialing and Privileging Plan. [Article XIV, Medical Staff Bylaws, p. 30]
`
`36.
`
`The Hospital’s Credentialing and Privileging Plan requires the Credentials
`
`Committee to prepare a written report to the Medical Executive Committee prior to reducing or
`
`revoking a practitioner’s clinical privileges. [Credentialing and Privileging Plan, Section 14]
`
`37.
`
`The Medical Executive Committee is then required to prepare a subsequent report
`
`to the Board which sets forth the Medical Executive Committee’s recommendations. If the
`
`Medical Executive Committee’s recommendation would reduce or revoke a practitioner’s clinical
`
`privileges, then the report to the Board shall set forth the reasons, and in such event, the Chief of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`Staff shall promptly notify the appointee as provided in the Fair Hearing Plan. In such case, the
`
`Medical Staff member or other individual exercising clinical privileges may be entitled to the
`
`procedural rights provided in the Fair Hearing Plan only to the extent provided in the Fair Hearing
`
`Plan. [Credentialing and Privileging Plan, Sections 14-15]
`
`38.
`
`It is the Board who has the responsibility to pursue final action on the Medical
`
`Executive Committee’s recommendations. [Credentialing and Privileging Plan, Sections 14-15]
`
`39.
`
`Patricia Hendricks was the Medical Staff Coordinator at the Hospital at the time of
`
`Plaintiff’s locum assignment. As the Medical Staff Coordinator, she was responsible for
`
`credentialing providers at the Hospital, and she had general knowledge regarding clinical
`
`privileges at the Hospital as well.
`
`40. Ms. Hendricks oversaw the credentialing of Plaintiff. The credentialing process
`
`did not reveal any previous issues or concerns with Plaintiff, either clinical or behavioral.
`
`Plaintiff’s background check also came back clean. Plaintiff was formally credentialed by the
`
`Hospital in the days leading up to December 3, 2018.
`
`41.
`
`The Hospital Medical Staff also granted Plaintiff clinical privileges to provide
`
`general cardiology services within the Hospital. Plaintiff was initially granted clinical privileges
`
`for a 60-day period running from December 3, 2018, to February 3, 2019. He was later granted
`
`clinical privileges for a second 60-day period which ran from February 4, 2019, to April 4, 2019.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff’s first day at the Hospital was December 3, 2018. Plaintiff spoke with Mr.
`
`Jeffrey Gardner on the first day of his assignment, as Mr. Gardner was Plaintiff’s assigned
`
`supervisor at the time. Mr. Gardner gave Plaintiff his assignment details and laid out the
`
`expectations regarding Plaintiff’s scope of work at the Hospital.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`43. Mr. Gardner specifically told Plaintiff that part of his job at the Hospital was to
`
`grow the hospital-side and office-side cardiology departments. Doing so would require Plaintiff
`
`to address scheduling-related issues and improve efficiency with those processes.
`
`44. Mr. Gardner left the Hospital in the days following the first meeting with Plaintiff
`
`on December 3, 2018. Mr. Jeff Schenck took over for Mr. Gardner upon his departure. Among
`
`his other duties at the Hospital, Mr. Schenck managed the clinical scheduling staff.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff quickly realized that there were scheduling-related issues within the
`
`cardiology department which were affecting patient care. Plaintiff noticed that referring providers
`
`would occasionally order the wrong cardiology tests, which would force Plaintiff to interact with
`
`scheduling staff to correct the error. Plaintiff also noticed that there were significant delays in
`
`scheduling patients for cardiology tests.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff attempted to resolve these issues and concerns by working directly with
`
`the scheduling office and the scheduling staff. He was not shy about voicing his concerns about
`
`the scheduling problems within the Hospital. From Plaintiff’s perspective, the scheduling issues
`
`raised serious concerns about patient safety, and he was vocal and outspoken about the need for
`
`improvement. To that end, Plaintiff would speak with patients about the need to follow up with
`
`the scheduling department if they did not hear anything within 7 to 14 days after their visit.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff realized in late December or early January of 2019 that the arrangement
`
`with the Hospital was not working out. Plaintiff informed Mr. Ehmke at DLT that he could not
`
`effectively treat patients under the circumstances at the Hospital. Plaintiff also asked Mr. Ehmke
`
`to shorten his assignment at the Hospital and find him a locum position elsewhere. Upon
`
`information and belief, DLT communicated these matters directly to the Hospital.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`48.
`
`Despite Plaintiff’s efforts to improve the Hospital’s scheduling processes and
`
`enhance patient care, the scheduling problems at the Hospital persisted.
`
`49.
`
`On March 7, 2019, the Hospital’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Bill Patten, made
`
`the decision to end Plaintiff’s locum assignment based upon Plaintiff’s vocal criticism of the
`
`Hospital’s scheduling processes and Plaintiff’s direct interpersonal communication style, which
`
`had drawn criticism from members of the Hospital’s staff.
`
`50. Mr. Patten was aware that terminating Plaintiff’s locum assignment could have
`
`serious ramifications on Plaintiff’s career. Mr. Patten knew that taking adverse action against
`
`Plaintiff’s privileges at the Hospital would negatively affect his future employment prospects and
`
`professional reputation.
`
`51. Mr. Patten, however, did not speak with Plaintiff about ending his locum
`
`assignment. Neither Mr. Patten nor anyone else at the Hospital prepared a letter to Plaintiff
`
`notifying him that his locum assignment was being terminated.
`
`52.
`
`On March 8, 2019, Mr. Schenck informed Plaintiff that it was his last day at the
`
`Hospital. Mr. Schenck did not tell Plaintiff that his locum assignment was terminated for cause.
`
`Nobody else at the Hospital told Plaintiff that his locum assignment was being terminated for
`
`cause. Plaintiff had previously informed DLT that he wanted to end his locum assignment at the
`
`Hospital early, and he assumed that his assignment at the Hospital ended because DLT found him
`
`an alternative locum assignment.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff called DLT to discuss the ending of his locum assignment at the Hospital.
`
`Nobody at DLT informed him that the Hospital had terminated his assignment at the Hospital for
`
`cause or the reasons underlying the termination.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff’s clinical privileges automatically expired upon the termination of his
`
`locum assignment at the Hospital on March 8, 2019.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff returned to California after his last day at the Hospital. Plaintiff did not
`
`hear from anyone at the Hospital regarding his termination. He did not hear from anyone at DLT
`
`either, despite his efforts to speak with Mr. Ehmke and others about what had occurred.
`
`56.
`
`Although Plaintiff’s clinical privileges had automatically expired upon the
`
`termination of his locum assignment on March 8, 2019, the Hospital’s Credentials Committee took
`
`up the issue of Plaintiff’s clinical privileges during a Credentials Committee meeting on April 4,
`
`2019.
`
`57.
`
`Nobody from the Hospital, the Hospital Medical Staff, the Credentials Committee,
`
`the Medical Executive Committee, or the Board ever notified Plaintiff that the Credentials
`
`Committee intended to take up the issue of his clinical privileges.
`
`58.
`
`Nobody from the Hospital, the Hospital Medical Staff, the Credentials Committee,
`
`the Medical Executive Committee, or the Board ever notified Plaintiff that the Credentials
`
`Committee intended to take action against his clinical privileges.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff had no knowledge that the Credentials Committee was going to meet or
`
`take action against his clinical privileges on April 4, 2019.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff was not provided with notice of the Credentials Committee’s meeting on
`
`April 4, 2019, and he was not given an opportunity to attend the meeting or otherwise defend
`
`himself against the allegations levied against him.
`
`61. Mr. Patten attended the Credentials Committee meeting on April 4, 2019. Mr.
`
`Patten believed that the Hospital Medical Staff was annoyed, upset, or angry about Plaintiff’s vocal
`
`criticism of the scheduling processes at the Hospital and his direct interpersonal communication
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`style. Mr. Patten believed that the Hospital Medical Staff wanted to make a point that any
`
`subsequent employer would know about Plaintiff’s behavior.
`
`62.
`
`The Credentials Committee voted to revoke Plaintiff’s clinical privileges at the
`
`Hospital on April 4, 2019. The Credentials Committee did so even though Plaintiff’s clinical
`
`privileges automatically expired almost a month earlier, on March 8, 2019. The Credentials
`
`Committee could not lawfully revoke Plaintiff’s clinical privileges if they did not exist.
`
`63.
`
`On April 19, 2019, the Hospital filed a false and defamatory adverse action report
`
`about Plaintiff with the National Practitioner Databank (“NPDB”) without a legitimate, lawful
`
`basis to do so.
`
`64.
`
`The NPDB is a web-based repository of reports containing information on medical
`
`malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to health care practitioners, providers,
`
`and suppliers. Established by Congress in 1986, it is a workforce tool that prevents practitioners
`
`from moving state to state without disclosure or discovery of previous damaging performance.
`
`65.
`
`Reporting entities must submit adverse action reports to the medical board of the
`
`State in which the adverse action occurred, either themselves or through the NPDB’s electronic
`
`report forwarding service.
`
`66.
`
`Health plans, medical malpractice insurers, and hospitals query the NPDB during
`
`the credentialing process and use the information in the NPDB to make decisions concerning
`
`credentialing and insuring physicians.
`
`67.
`
`The adverse action report that the Hospital submitted to the NPDB stated that
`
`Plaintiff’s clinical privileges were unanimously terminated by the Hospital Medical Staff
`
`Credentials Committee, even though Plaintiff’s clinical privileges had expired almost a month
`
`before the Credentials Committee took up the issue of Plaintiff’s clinical privileges.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`68.
`
`The adverse action report also falsely stated that DLT had dropped Plaintiff from
`
`their service panel. Plaintiff, however, was not dropped from DLT’s service panel at the time of
`
`the report.
`
`69.
`
`The adverse action report also grossly mischaracterized a non-clinical interaction
`
`Plaintiff had with a female Hospital employee, claiming that when the employee told Plaintiff that
`
`he was “stressing her out,” Plaintiff told the employee to “undress and get on the treadmill so that
`
`she could experience stress.”
`
`70.
`
`The adverse action report further stated that undisclosed standard of care concerns
`
`had been forwarded to the Hospital’s Professional Standards Committee, even though Plaintiff had
`
`never been made aware of any such concerns. The statements regarding standard of care concerns
`
`gave recipients of the report the impression that Plaintiff did not appropriately care for patients.
`
`71.
`
`The adverse action report also piled on Plaintiff with a litany of alleged
`
`interpersonal conflicts that Plaintiff had with Hospital staff to ensure that recipients of the report
`
`would believe that Plaintiff is a disruptive physician.
`
`72.
`
`The adverse action report was sent to all of the States where Plaintiff held a medical
`
`license, including New Mexico, and to the Federation of State Medical Boards. As a result, several
`
`state’s medical licensure boards initiated formal investigations into Plaintiff and his medical
`
`licenses.
`
`73.
`
`In the Summer of 2020, the Hospital withdrew the adverse action report about
`
`Plaintiff from the NPDB upon advice of the Hospital’s counsel, Holland & Hart, LLP, and
`
`acknowledged that the NPDB report should not have been filed in the first place. But this came
`
`too late to save Plaintiff’s reputation and career. Despite the withdrawal of the adverse action
`
`report, state licensing bodies, including the New Mexico Medical Board, refused to stop their
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 15 of 22
`
`investigations of Plaintiff based upon their receipt of the improperly filed, false and defamatory
`
`adverse action report. But for the improper filing of the false and defamatory adverse action report,
`
`state licensure boards would not have initiated formal investigations into Plaintiff or taken action
`
`against his medical licenses.
`
`74.
`
`The New Mexico Medical Board issued a Notice of Contemplated Action against
`
`Plaintiff on May 13, 2020.
`
`75.
`
`A merits hearing took place on March 24, 25, and 26, 2021, before a Hearing
`
`Officer appointed by the New Mexico Medical Board.
`
`76.
`
`On July 8, 2021, the New Mexico Medical Board assessed a $3,000 fine against
`
`Plaintiff and suspended Plaintiff’s license to practice medicine in New Mexico.
`
`77.
`
`The New Mexico Medical Board submitted an adverse action report to the NPDB
`
`report following its decision on July 8, 2021.
`
`78.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ wrongful submission of the false and defamatory adverse
`
`action report about Plaintiff to the NPDB:
`
`a. The New Mexico Medical Board suspended Plaintiff’s license to practice medicine;
`
`b. The New Mexico Medical Board filed an adverse action report with the NPDB;
`
`c. Two insurers have removed Plaintiff as a provider;
`
`d. Arkansas suspended Plaintiff’s license and stated that he is an “ongoing danger” to
`
`patients;
`
`e. Other state
`
`licensing boards,
`
`including North Dakota, Iowa, California,
`
`Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon, are initiating or have initiated
`
`investigations against Plaintiff;
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 16 of 22
`
`f. Allied Pacific of California and the American Board of Internal Medicine are
`
`initiating or have initiated investigations against Plaintiff;
`
`g. California published Plaintiff’s license suspension from New Mexico;
`
`h. Plaintiff cannot obtain medical malpractice insurance;
`
`i. Plaintiff cannot be credentialed at any healthcare facility; and
`
`j. His last employer terminated his employment on December 13, 2021.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants’ conduct has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff damages,
`
`including but not limited to the following, in an amount to be determined at trial:
`
`a. Payment for services rendered by Plaintiff prior to his termination for which he was
`
`never paid;
`
`b. Loss of past and future income;
`
`c. Damages to Plaintiff’s reputation;
`
`d. Emotional distress;
`
`e. Attorneys’ fees which Plaintiff incurred for representation in connection with the
`
`revocation of his privileges and defense of state licensing bodies’ investigations
`
`and administrative actions, including but not limited to the New Mexico Medical
`
`Board’s investigation and administrative action, which currently exceeds $100,000;
`
`and
`
`f. Attorneys’ fees which Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur for
`
`representation in connection with medical board investigations and actions in other
`
`jurisdictions, including North Dakota, Iowa, California, Arkansas, Massachusetts,
`
`Washington, and Oregon.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00285-JFR-SCY Document 1 Filed 04/18/22 Page 17 of 22
`
`80.
`
`Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages against Defendants to the extent their
`
`conduct was willful, wanton, fraudulent, in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, or otherwise
`
`meets the standards under New Mexico law for imposition of punitive damages in order to punish
`
`Defendants and deter similar conduct by others in the future.
`
`COUNT I
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`The Medical Staff Bylaws constitute a contract between Defendants and Plaintiff
`
`81.
`
`which includes express and implied covenants, including but not limited to those covenants
`
`implied by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and New Mexico Review Organization
`
`Immunity Act.
`
`82.
`
`Defendants breached Article IX of the Medical Staff Bylaws by failing to follow
`
`the requirements relevant to taking corrective action.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants breached Article XIV of the Medical Staff Bylaws by:
`
`a.
`
`Initiating a professional review action against Plaintiff’s clinical privileges
`
`after his clinical privileges had automatically expired;
`
`b.
`
`Initiating adverse action without a reasonable belief that Plaintiff’s conduct
`
`constituted grounds for adverse action;
`
`c. Failing to review the matter to determine whether grounds existed to initiate
`
`adverse action; and
`
`d. Failing to designate one or more of its members to meet with Plaintiff in an
`
`effort to informally resolve the matter;
`
`84.
`
`Defendants also breached Article XIV of the Medical Staff Bylaws by revok