Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 1 of 38 PAGEID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION - DAYTON
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________________
`
`
`JUDGE _________________________
`
`
`JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON
`
`
`
`
`
`AMANDA MCALEER, M.D.
`201 Evergreen Dr.
`Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`
`THE SHELBY COUNTY MEMORIAL
`HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION DBA
`WILSON HEALTH DBA WILSON
`MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
`915 West Michigan Street
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
` and
`c/o Stanley R. Evans, Registered Agent
`100 South Main Street, Suite 102
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
`
`and
`
`ERIC PRENGER, M.D.
`Individually and in his Official Capacity
`915 West Michigan Street
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
`
`and
`
`MICHAEL TRYGSTAD, M.D.
`Individually and in his Official Capacity
`915 West Michigan Street
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION - DAYTON
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. _______________________
`
`
`JUDGE _________________________
`
`
`JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON
`
`
`
`
`
`AMANDA MCALEER, M.D.
`201 Evergreen Dr.
`Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`
`THE SHELBY COUNTY MEMORIAL
`HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION DBA
`WILSON HEALTH DBA WILSON
`MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
`915 West Michigan Street
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
` and
`c/o Stanley R. Evans, Registered Agent
`100 South Main Street, Suite 102
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
`
`and
`
`ERIC PRENGER, M.D.
`Individually and in his Official Capacity
`915 West Michigan Street
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
`
`and
`
`MICHAEL TRYGSTAD, M.D.
`Individually and in his Official Capacity
`915 West Michigan Street
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 2 of 38 PAGEID #: 2
`
`ROBERT MCDEVITT, JR., M.D.
`Individually and in his Official Capacity
`915 West Michigan Street
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
`
`and
`
`CARRIE HUBER, M.D.
`Individually and in her Official Capacity
`915 West Michigan Street
`Sidney, Ohio 45365
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Now comes Plaintiff, Amanda McAleer, M.D., by and through the undersigned counsel,
`
`who hereby alleges and asserts against Defendants as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff, Amanda McAleer, M.D. (“Dr. McAleer”), is a resident of the State of Ohio and
`
`an OB/GYN physician employed by the Wilson Health Medical Group with privileges at
`
`The Shelby County Memorial Hospital Association d/b/a Wilson Health d/b/a Wilson
`
`Memorial Hospital.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant, The Shelby County Memorial Hospital Association d/b/a Wilson Health d/b/a
`
`Wilson Memorial Hospital (“Wilson Health”), is an independent community hospital and
`
`Ohio non-profit corporation with a principal place of business at 915 West Michigan Street,
`
`Sidney, Ohio 45365. Wilson Health maintains a number of committees relevant to its
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 3 of 38 PAGEID #: 3
`
`3.
`
`administration and the actions herein, including the Medical Executive Committee
`
`(“MEC”) and the Medical Peer Review Committee (“MPRC”).
`
`4.
`
`Defendant, Eric Prenger, M.D. (“Dr. Prenger”), is a resident of the State of Ohio, a
`
`physician at Wilson Health, the Chief of Staff of Wilson Health, and the Chair of the MEC.
`
`He is being sued both as an individual and in his official capacity.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant, Michael Trygstad, D.O. (“Dr. Trygstad”), is a resident of the State of Ohio, a
`
`physician with Wilson Health, Chair of the Wilson Health Medical Group Peer Review
`
`Committee, and, at all times relevant herein, was the interim Chief Medical Officer of
`
`Wilson Health, a member of the MEC, and a member of the MPRC. He is being sued both
`
`as an individual and in his official capacity.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant, Robert McDevitt, Jr., M.D. (“Dr. McDevitt”), is a resident of the State of Ohio,
`
`a physician with Wilson Health, and at all time relevant herein was a voting member of the
`
`MEC and a member of the MEC Investigative Subcommittee. He is being sued both as an
`
`individual and in his official capacity.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant, Carrie Huber, M.D. (“Dr. Huber”), is a resident of the State of Ohio and, at all
`
`times relevant herein, was an OB/GYN physician at Wilson Health Medical Group with
`
`privileges at Wilson Health, the Chair of the MPRC, and a voting member of the MEC.
`
`She is being sued both as an individual and in her official capacity.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each of the proceeding allegations within this Count by reference.
`
`This Court has federal jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 4 of the Clayton Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1342, 1962, and 1964, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11152
`
`of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (“HCQIA”).
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 4 of 38 PAGEID #: 4
`
`10.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction is established over Plaintiff’s federal claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1337.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has supplemental or pendent jurisdiction of the remaining claims in this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as said claims are so related to the original jurisdiction
`
`claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United
`
`States Constitution.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
`
`Western Division in Dayton, Ohio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the conduct giving rise
`
`to the causes of action occurred in Shelby County, Ohio and/or some or all of the
`
`Defendants reside in the district, transact affairs in this district, and/or conduct a substantial
`
`amount of business in this district.
`
`III.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each of the proceeding allegations within this Count by reference.
`
`Dr. McAleer graduated from Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine in 2007.
`
`After graduation, Dr. McAleer completed her residency at Riverside Methodist Hospital
`
`and became a board-certified OB/GYN.
`
`16.
`
`Dr. McAleer began her medical career in 2011 as a junior partner at a private medical
`
`practice in Conway, South Caroline.
`
`17.
`
`In 2014, she left her practice in Conway and joined a hospital-owned OB/GYN practice at
`
`Mary Rutan Hospital in Bellefontaine, Ohio, where she became the Department Chair of
`
`the OB/GYN group within a matter of months.
`
`18.
`
`Seeking a better work/life balance, Dr. McAleer accepted an OB/GYN position with
`
`Wilson Care, LLC d/b/a Wilson Health Medical Group (“WHMG”), a medical practice
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 5 of 38 PAGEID #: 5
`
`affiliated with Wilson Health composed of over 30 physicians and nurse practitioners
`
`across a broad spectrum of specialties.
`
`19.
`
`Prior to starting work at WHMG on January 2, 2019, Dr. McAleer was appointed to the
`
`Wilson Health medical staff and granted privileges at Wilson Health based upon her
`
`employment with WHMG.
`
`THE ORIGINS OF CONFLICT WITH DR. HUBER AND WILSON HEALTH
`
`20.
`
`For the next eight months Dr. McAleer worked at WHMG and exercised her privileges at
`
`Wilson Health without incident.
`
`21.
`
`This all changed after Dr. McAleer had a run in with Dr. Huber, one of her partners in the
`
`WHMG OB/GYN practice, as well as the Chair of the MPRC and a voting member of the
`
`MEC during all times relevant herein.
`
`22.
`
`On August 22, 2019, Dr. McAleer took a vacation day, which required Dr. Huber to cover
`
`for her at Wilson Health.
`
`23.
`
`Dr. Huber became personally offended when she discovered that Dr. McAleer was working
`
`a previously scheduled locums job at Lima Memorial Hospital on her vacation day.
`
`24.
`
`Dr. Huber left several angry and unprofessional messages that same evening for Dr.
`
`McAleer at Lima Memorial Hospital and at the Lima OB/GYN private practice’s
`
`messaging service demanding to speak to Dr. McAleer but refusing to divulge what the
`
`call was regarding.
`
`25.
`
`Dr. McAleer called the Lima OB/GYN private practice she was covering for and
`
`apologized for Dr. Huber’s extremely embarrassing and unprofessional calls.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 6 of 38 PAGEID #: 6
`
`26.
`
`Dr. McAleer received a third call later that night from the Lima OB/GYN private practice’s
`
`messaging service from an alleged patient indicating that Dr. McAleer had seen her in the
`
`Lima office.
`
`27.
`
`Dr. McAleer was immediately suspicious of the veracity of this alleged patient message as
`
`she only covered calls for the Lima private practice and had never seen patients in the office
`
`on their behalf.
`
`28.
`
`Dr. McAleer called the so-called “patient” back, listened to her alleged medical issue, and
`
`provided medical advice.
`
`29.
`
`Dr. McAleer later discovered that the phone call from the so-called “patient” was
`
`fraudulent and was made from a cell phone connected to Christa Meyer (“Meyer”), the
`
`office manager for the WHMG OB/GYN practice and a close personal friend of Dr. Huber.
`
`30.
`
`After completing her locums work, Dr. McAleer returned to work at WHMG on August
`
`26, 2019 and attended a lunchtime provider meeting with the other physicians in her
`
`practice.
`
`31.
`
`The issue of Dr. McAleer performing locums work was brought up at the provider meeting
`
`whereupon Dr. Huber and Meyer became extremely angry and attacked Dr. McAleer’s
`
`character, professionalism, trustworthiness, and abilities as a mother.
`
`32.
`
`The personal attacks by Dr. Huber and Meyer were so bad that they drove Dr. McAleer to
`
`tears.
`
`33.
`
`From that point on, Dr. Huber acted as if she had a personal vendetta against Dr. McAleer
`
`and began a campaign to drive her out of the practice.
`
`34.
`
`Right after the August 2019 incident, Dr. McAleer had three cases referred to the MPRC –
`
`the very same peer review committee that Dr. Huber chaired.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 7 of 38 PAGEID #: 7
`
`35.
`
`Dr. Huber was responsible for personally referring two of the three cases to the Quality
`
`Control Department, and was also a treating physician and/or a fact witness in all three
`
`cases.
`
`36.
`
`Dr. McAleer felt Dr. Huber was harassing her and bringing cases against her in retaliation
`
`for the August 22nd incident.
`
`37.
`
`It has since come to light that Dr. McAleer’s fears were justified as Dr. Huber did in fact
`
`have a personal grudge against Dr. McAleer:
`
`a. Dr. Huber told another doctor in the practice later that August that she wanted to
`
`get Dr. McAleer fired because she didn’t trust her and didn’t want to practice with
`
`her;
`
`b. Dr. Huber began “strip stalking” Dr. McAleer trying to find cases she could refer
`
`to the MPRC;
`
`c. Dr. Huber became very hostile towards Dr. McAleer after the August 22nd incident
`
`and began to treat Dr. McAleer differently and in an inappropriate and
`
`unprofessional manner;
`
`d. Another doctor in the practice expressed her concerns about Dr. Huber’s treatment
`
`of Dr. McAleer to the OB/GYN Section Chair; and
`
`e. Dr. McAleer became so concerned with Dr. Huber’s conduct that she asked the
`
`OB/GYN Section Chair if they were trying to fire her or force her to quit.
`
`38.
`
`Dr. Huber’s conflict with Dr. McAleer reached its zenith when Dr. Huber physically
`
`shoved Dr. McAleer in the office, which resulted in Dr. Huber moving from the office
`
`“pod” she shared with Dr. McAleer to an empty exam room to avoid any interactions with
`
`Dr. McAleer.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 8 of 38 PAGEID #: 8
`
`39.
`
`Despite Dr. Huber’s conflict with Dr. McAleer, Dr. Huber did not disclose her personal
`
`conflict with Dr. McAleer to the members of the MPRC or the MEC, Dr. Huber did not
`
`recuse herself from Dr. McAleer’s peer review matters before the MPRC or the MEC
`
`investigations of Dr. McAleer, and neither the MPRC nor the MEC conducted a formal
`
`investigation of Dr. Huber’s conflict of interest with Dr. McAleer.
`
`THE FIRST THREE PEER REVIEW MATTERS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION
`OF THE FOCUSED PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EVALUATION
`
`On August 15, 2019, the MPRC conducted an initial peer review of one of Dr. McAleer’s
`
`40.
`
`patients and determined that her treatment deviated from the standard of care (“Patient No.
`
`1”).
`
`41.
`
`On August 20, 2019, the MPRC sent Dr. McAleer a letter providing notice of the peer
`
`review matter regarding the treatment of Patient No. 1 and requested Dr. McAleer to
`
`respond to the allegations in writing on or before September 9, 2019.
`
`42.
`
`Dr. McAleer timely submitted a written response to the allegations and provided
`
`information and documentation showing her treatment of Patient No. 1 was within the
`
`standard of care.
`
`43.
`
`Dr. McAleer would not receive any further information regarding the peer review of Patient
`
`No. 1 until nearly six months later when the MPRC would send a letter dated February 21,
`
`2020 notifying her that the external peer reviewer determined she had met the standard of
`
`care and the MPRC was closing the Patient No. 1 peer review file.
`
`44.
`
`Interestingly, this same notice was the first time Dr. McAleer even learned that the matter
`
`had been sent to an external peer reviewer, let alone that the review resulted in no findings
`
`and a closed case.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 9 of 38 PAGEID #: 9
`
`45.
`
`However, the Patient No. 1 peer review would prove extremely detrimental to Dr. McAleer,
`
`despite the fact that there was no deviation from the standard of care, as the mere fact of
`
`its very existence would be used to support the FPPE, the Summary Suspension, the Formal
`
`Corrective Action Investigation, and the Corrective Action.
`
`46. Moreover, Dr. McAleer would be denied the opportunity to respond to the Patient No. 1
`
`External Peer Review Report, which would become important later on in the MEC
`
`investigation and findings.
`
`47.
`
`In September 2019, Dr. Huber referred two matters to the MPRC for review, one occurring
`
`on August 27, 2019 (“Patient No. 2”) and the other occurring on August 29, 2019 (“Patient
`
`No. 3”), in which Dr. McAleer’s notes indicated she conducted a physical examination of
`
`said patients before discharging them, but Dr. Huber believed Dr. McAleer had not actually
`
`conducted a physical examination and therefore her documentation was inaccurate.
`
`48.
`
`On September 24, 2019, the MPRC sent Dr. McAleer two letters: a letter providing notice
`
`of the peer review matter involving documentation issues with Patient No. 2 and requested
`
`Dr. McAleer to respond to the allegations in writing on or before October 7, 2019; and a
`
`letter providing notice of the peer review matter involving documentation issues with
`
`Patient No. 3 and requested Dr. McAleer to respond to the allegations in writing on or
`
`before October 7, 2019.
`
`49.
`
`Dr. McAleer timely submitted written responses to the documentation allegations
`
`regarding Patient No. 2 and Patient No. 3, indicating that the documentation issues were
`
`the result of her misunderstanding Wilson Health’s documentation standards and confusion
`
`regarding Wilson Health’s medical records software, and that she would ensure to correct
`
`the issue moving forward.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 10 of 38 PAGEID #: 10
`
`50.
`
`On October 24, 2019, the MPRC met and discussed the three peer review files involving
`
`Dr. McAleer:
`
`a. The MPRC decided to send the Patient No. 1 peer review matter to an outside peer
`
`reviewer to determine whether the treatment was within the standard of care; and
`
`b. The MPRC decided to informally resolve the Patient No. 2 and Patient No. 3 peer
`
`review matters by having two MPRC members meet with Dr. McAleer to discuss
`
`the documentation issues, explain Wilson Health documentation standards, and
`
`advise her where to go in the future should she have documentation or medical
`
`records software questions or issues.
`
`51.
`
`On October 28, 2019, two members of the MPRC met with Dr. McAleer and discussed the
`
`documentation errors.
`
`52.
`
`At this same meeting, Dr. McAleer indicated she feared she was being harassed and
`
`targeted by Dr. Huber as a result of their prior conflict and that Dr. Huber was using the
`
`peer review process in a vindictive manner.
`
`53.
`
`On November 21, 2019, the MPRC met and determined that the documentation errors
`
`regarding Patient No. 2 and Patient No. 3 resulted from Dr. McAleer’s lack of
`
`understanding of Wilson Health’s standards of practice and inexperience with the medical
`
`record software.
`
`54.
`
`As a result, the MPRC closed the Patient No. 2 and Patient No. 3 peer review matters and
`
`sent Dr. McAleer written notice of the peer review outcome, indicated that the peer review
`
`matters for Patient No. 2 and Patient No. 3 were closed, and that any future documentation
`
`issues would be escalated to the MEC.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 11 of 38 PAGEID #: 11
`
`55.
`
`At this same meeting, the MPRC agreed for the second time to send the Patient No. 1 peer
`
`review matter to an external peer reviewer.
`
`56.
`
`Dr. McAleer’s allegations of harassment and targeting against Dr. Huber are briefly
`
`referenced in the November 21st meeting minutes, but Dr. Huber did not disclose her
`
`personal conflict with Dr. McAleer, Dr. Huber did not recuse herself from the proceedings
`
`against Dr. McAleer, and the MPRC did not conduct an investigation regarding Dr.
`
`McAleer’s allegations or a potential conflict of interest.
`
`57.
`
`On December 12, 2019, Dr. Huber presented a report to the MEC regarding the November
`
`21st MPRC meeting and the three Dr. McAleer peer review matters.
`
`58.
`
`Neither Dr. Huber nor other MEC members aware of the issue disclosed or discussed Dr.
`
`Huber’s personal conflict with Dr. McAleer.
`
`59.
`
`There is also no evidence that Dr. Huber recused herself from the MEC proceedings against
`
`Dr. McAleer or that the MEC conducted an investigation regarding Dr. McAleer’s
`
`allegations or the potential conflict of interest.
`
`60.
`
`Despite the fact that the MPRC had informally resolved and official closed the Patient No.
`
`2 and Patient No. 3 peer review matters, the members of the MEC, including Dr. Huber,
`
`voted to place Dr. McAleer on a six (6) month prospective Focused Professional Practice
`
`Evaluation (“FPPE”) in order to review and monitor Dr. McAleer files for documentation
`
`issues.
`
`61.
`
`The MEC directed Dr. Huber and the MPRC to report back to the MEC regarding the
`
`outcome of the FPPE after the six (6) months expired – after the MEC’s June 2020 meeting.
`
`62.
`
`Dr. Trygstad, the interim CMO of Wilson Health, a member of the MEC, and a member of
`
`the MPRC, sent Dr. McAleer a letter, dated December 16, 2019, indicating the following:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 12 of 38 PAGEID #: 12
`
`a. that the MPRC decided at the November 21st MPRC meeting to share the results of
`
`the Patient No. 2 and Patient No. 3 peer review investigations with the MEC at the
`
`December 12th MEC meeting; and
`
`b. that as a result of the Patient No. 2 and Patient No. 3 peer review matters, the MEC
`
`decided to place Dr. McAleer on a FPPE for six (6) months to assess her
`
`documentation on a regular basis for concerns regarding accurate documentation.
`
`63.
`
`Although Dr. McAleer would never get an update regarding the status or outcome of the
`
`FPPE, the mere existence of the FPPE would be used as a weapon against Dr. McAleer
`
`and as retrospective justification for future actions taken by the MPRC and MEC.
`
`64.
`
`It is also noteworthy, that although the correspondence was dated December 16th, there is
`
`evidence the MEC failed to timely send the FPPE letter as Dr. McAleer would not receive
`
`the notice until nearly a month later January 13, 2020, and a mere ten-days before the MEC
`
`would summarily suspend her privileges.
`
`THE SUMMARY SUSPENSION
`
`65.
`
`On December 19, 2019, a member of the MPRC conducted an initial peer review of a Dr.
`
`McAleer patient treated on October 17th (“Patient No. 4”) for a medical records
`
`documentation error.
`
`66.
`
`The MPRC reviewer deemed the issue was a category 3 marginal deviation from the
`
`standard of care and sent it to the full MPRC committee for further review, this despite the
`
`fact that the reviewer determined the documentation issue was caused by a failure of the
`
`Dragon voice software to properly interpret/transcribe Dr. McAleer’s audio notes into
`
`writing for the medical records.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 13 of 38 PAGEID #: 13
`
`67.
`
`At the MPRC meeting that same date, the MPRC confirmed that the documentation issue
`
`in Patient No. 4’s file was the result of a Dragon interpretation error and determined it
`
`would notify Dr. McAleer of the issue and close the Patient No. 4 peer review matter.
`
`68.
`
`On December 30, 2019, the MPRC sent Dr. McAleer a letter providing notice of the Patient
`
`No. 4 peer review matter, indicated that the MPRC determined the documentation error
`
`was the result of a Dragon software interpretation error, instructed Dr. McAleer to ensure
`
`she reviewed her charts for Dragon software interpretation errors prior to signing off on
`
`the notes, and indicated that the Patient No. 4 peer review matter was closed.
`
`69.
`
`The Patient No. 4 documentation issue should not have been referred to peer review as it
`
`was caused by faulty software interpretation.
`
`70.
`
`Even if the Patient No. 4 documentation issue was relevant to peer review, any such review
`
`of the matter should have been addressed through the existing FPPE designed to address
`
`documentation errors.
`
`71.
`
`Further, the Patient No. 4 documentation file would be improperly used by the MPRC and
`
`MEC in the future as a basis to issue the summary suspension, to initiate a formal corrective
`
`action investigation, and to take formal corrective action against Dr. Huber.
`
`72.
`
`On January 16, 2020, a member of the MPRC conducted an initial review of two files
`
`concerning patients treated by Dr. McAleer:
`
`a. a pregnant patient treated on December 5, 2019 resulted in an incident report to the
`
`OB Quality Control team for standard of care concerns and then forwarded to the
`
`MPRC for peer review based upon the alleged failure to monitor a second baby, a
`
`baby that did not actually exist, while administering Pitocin and proceeding with
`
`delivery (“Patient No. 5”); and
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 14 of 38 PAGEID #: 14
`
`b. a pregnant patient treated on December 15, 2019 sent to peer review for standard
`
`of care concerns based upon the alleged failure of Dr. McAleer to ensure the patient
`
`followed up for an ultrasound (“Patient No. 6”).
`
`73.
`
`Dr. Huber chaired a meeting of the MPRC that same day and considered the Patient No. 5
`
`and Patient No. 6 peer review files.
`
`74.
`
`As to Patient No. 5, the MPRC voted to forward the peer review matter to the MEC for its
`
`consideration.
`
`75.
`
`As to Patient No. 6, the MPRC determined Dr. McAleer failed to ensure the patient follow-
`
`up for the ultrasound recommended by radiology one week post-surgery, and decided to
`
`provide written notice of the issue to Dr. McAleer and close the peer review case.
`
`76.
`
`On January 18, 2020, the MPRC sent Dr. McAleer a letter providing notice of the Patient
`
`No. 6 peer review matter, instructed Dr. McAleer to review prior notes in patient charts to
`
`ensure they are receiving proper discharge orders, and indicated that the Patient No. 6 peer
`
`review matter was closed.
`
`77.
`
`On January 22, 2020, the MEC held an Ad Hoc/Special Meeting to discuss the past and
`
`present peer review matters involving Dr. McAleer and determine whether to take
`
`additional informal or formal action against her.
`
`78.
`
`Dr. Huber, without disclosing her personal conflict with Dr. McAleer and without recusing
`
`herself from the presentations, discussions, and/or voting, gave a presentation to the MEC
`
`regarding the six MPRC peer review matters involving Dr. McAleer.
`
`79.
`
`The MEC relied entirely upon Dr. Huber’s presentation of the cases and did not actually
`
`review the full peer review files and patient medical records.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 15 of 38 PAGEID #: 15
`
`80.
`
`The MEC decided to summarily suspend Dr. McAleer’s obstetrics privileges and her
`
`gynecology privileges on pregnant patients and conduct a formal corrective action
`
`investigation into past and present peer review matters involving Dr. McAleer.
`
`81.
`
`Prior to issuing the summary suspension, the MEC determined that Dr. McAleer would be
`
`given the choice to voluntarily agree not to exercise her obstetrics privileges and her
`
`gynecology privileges on pregnant patients pending the formal corrective action
`
`investigation.
`
`82.
`
`The MEC directed Dr. Prenger, the Wilson Health Chief of Staff and the Chair of the MEC,
`
`and Dr. McDevitt, a voting member of the MEC, to meet with Dr. McAleer the following
`
`day to present the options to her, and to immediately impose summary suspension if she
`
`refused to voluntarily agree not to exercise her obstetrics privileges and her gynecology
`
`privileges on pregnant patients while the investigation was conducted.
`
`83.
`
`The MEC formed an Ad Hoc Investigative Committee composed of Drs. Melisa Mekesa -
`
`Chair, Robert McDevitt, and Kristi Pedler to conduct the formal corrective action
`
`investigation of Dr. McAleer.
`
`84.
`
`On January 23, 2020, Drs. Prenger and McDevitt met with Dr. McAleer to explain the
`
`MEC’s decision to begin a formal corrective action investigation and to present her options
`
`on summary suspension of her obstetrics and gynecological privileges.
`
`85.
`
`Drs. Prenger and McDevitt hand-delivered a Notice of Formal Corrective Action
`
`Investigation, a Notice of Summary Suspension of All Obstetrics Privileges and Partial
`
`Gynecology Privileges, and a proposed Voluntary Agreement not to Exercise Privileges.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 16 of 38 PAGEID #: 16
`
`86.
`
`Drs. Prenger and McDevitt told Dr. McAleer that the formal corrective action investigation
`
`would be conducted timely and diligently, and the whole process would be completed
`
`within 3 to 4 weeks.
`
`87.
`
`Drs. Prenger and McDevitt gave Dr. McAleer a deadline of 5:00 pm that evening to agree
`
`to the terms of Voluntary Suspension, or the MEC would move forward with the Summary
`
`Suspension.
`
`88.
`
`Dr. McAleer was willing to agree to the Voluntary Suspension, but Wilson Health refused
`
`to allow her to voluntarily suspend exercising of her privileges during the formal corrective
`
`action investigation unless she also agreed to waive her Article XIII due process and
`
`hearing rights.
`
`89.
`
`As a result, Dr. McAleer refused to sign the Voluntary Suspension Letter or the Summary
`
`Suspension Letter, and the MEC implemented the Summary Suspension effective January
`
`23, 2020.
`
`90.
`
`Dr. Prenger sent Dr. McAleer a Notice of Adverse Action/Right to Hearing letter, dated
`
`February 11, 2020, informing her that the MEC’s action against her was now deemed
`
`adverse pursuant to Article 13.3 of the Bylaws because the summary suspension had
`
`remained in place for more than 14-days, and provided Dr. McAleer with notice of her
`
`Article 13 due process and hearing rights.
`
`91.
`
`In early March 2020, Wilson Health sent reports to the National Practitioner Data Bank
`
`and the State Medical Board of Ohio regarding the summary suspension.
`
`92.
`
`Dr. McAleer timely submitted a written request for an administrative hearing as to the
`
`Summary Suspension via a letter dated February 21, 2020.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 17 of 38 PAGEID #: 17
`
`93.
`
`In the meantime, the MEC Ad Hoc Investigative Subcommittee conducted its formal
`
`corrective action investigation of Dr. McAleer.
`
`94.
`
`The Investigative Subcommittee issued its Report and Recommendation, dated March 5,
`
`2020, to the MEC and recommended that formal corrective action be taken against Dr.
`
`McAleer as follows: that Dr. McAleer be required to complete approved AMA courses in
`
`ethics and documentation; that Dr. McAleer be placed on a 4 to 6 month obstetrics
`
`consultation plan with concurrent review of her care and medical records to ensure
`
`compliance; and that the summary suspension would be lifted once the consult requirement
`
`was put in place.
`
`95.
`
`The MEC met on March 12, 2020 to consider the Report and Recommendation of the Ad
`
`Hoc Subcommittee and adopted the following Formal Remediation Plan: that Dr. McAleer
`
`complete AMA approved courses in ethics and documentation in 60-days; that Dr.
`
`McAleer be placed on a 6 month consultation requirement when caring for obstetrical
`
`patients and pregnant gynecological patients, with concurrent review of her medical
`
`records to ensure compliance; that summary suspension be lifted as soon as the consult
`
`plan implemented; and that the MEC would then review the matter at the end of the 6
`
`month period to decide whether to remove the consult requirement or take further action.
`
`96.
`
`Dr. McAleer was provided a written Notice of Adverse Recommendation of the MEC,
`
`dated March 16, 2020, which stated that the MEC would recommend the Wilson Health
`
`Board adopt the proposed Formal Remediation Plan, that the MEC’s recommendation was
`
`deemed adverse pursuant to Article XIII of the Bylaws, and provided notice of Dr.
`
`McAleer’s due process and hearing rights under the Bylaws.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 18 of 38 PAGEID #: 18
`
`97.
`
`Dr. McAleer timely submitted a written request for an administrative hearing as to the
`
`Corrective Action via a letter dated March 18, 2020.
`
`98.
`
`On June 11, 2020, the MEC met to review the outcome of the MPRC’s peer review of
`
`Patient No. 5, which found that there was a significant deviation from the standard of care.
`
`99.
`
`This finding would later be challenged by an expert witness that found Dr. McAleer had
`
`not violated the standard of care in her treatment of Patient No. 5, nor any of the other five
`
`peer review files reviewed by the MPRC and/or MEC.
`
`100. The MEC sent Dr. McAleer a Supplemental Notice of Adverse Recommendation, dated
`
`June 11, 2020, which provided the findings of the Patient No. 5 peer review, stated that the
`
`MEC incorporated said findings into the March 16th Corrective Action, and that the matter
`
`would be heard as part of Dr. McAleer’s Corrective Action hearing.
`
`101. Despite Dr. McAleer’s objections, the MEC decided to combine the administrative
`
`hearings for the Summary Suspension, the Corrective Action, and the Supplemental
`
`Corrective action into a single administrative hearing before a hearing officer, which took
`
`place over the course of five-days in late July and early August 2020.
`
`102. The Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation found in favor of Wilson Health and
`
`upheld the Summary Suspension and the Corrective Action.
`
`103. Dr. McAleer timely sent written notice to the Wilson Health Board of Trustees to Request
`
`Appellate Review pursuant to Sections 13.9 and 13.10 of the Wilson Health Bylaws.
`
`104. The Wilson Health Board of Trustees denied Dr. McAleer’s Appeal and adopted the
`
`MEC’s Formal Remediation Plan.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 19 of 38 PAGEID #: 19
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL CLAIMS
`
`COUNT ONE
`COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF
`SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND SECTION 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT
`AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
`
`
`105. Plaintiff incorporates each of the proceeding allegations within this Count by reference.
`
`106. Dr. McAleer was a successful OB/GYN who brought many patients with her to Wilson
`
`Health and WHMG.
`
`107. Dr. Huber was a direct competitor of Dr. McAleer.
`
`108. Upon information and belief, Dr. Huber intentionally engaged in actions to specifically
`
`sabotage Dr. McAleer for monetary reasons.
`
`109. Defendants engaged in verbal contract, combination, conspiracy, and/or concerted action
`
`by committing to a common scheme with an illegal objective to eliminate Dr. McAleer as
`
`a competitor in violation of federal anti-trust laws.
`
`110. Defendants’ unlawful actions in furtherance of their verbal contract, combination,
`
`conspiracy with concerted action to achieve an illegal objective to eliminate Plaintiff as a
`
`competitor, reduce competition, reduce quality have caused irreparable harm and damage
`
`to Dr. McAleer, to patients in the marketplace and to interstate commerce.
`
`111. Based upon the foregoing, Dr. McAleer is entitled to compensatory damages, punitive
`
`damages, special damages, treble damages, and the recovery of her costs, expenses, and
`
`attorney fees incurred herein.
`
`COUNT TWO
`VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. § 1342 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
`
`112. Plaintiff incorporates each of the proceeding allegations within this Count by reference.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case: 3:21-cv-00070-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/01/21 Page: 20 of 38 PAGEID #: 20
`
`113. Wilson Health is an ass
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
