In the Kadlec case (pp. 274 – 278 of text J. Stuart Showalter’s The Law of Healthcare Administration, 7th edition (2015),), Lakeview Medical was exonerated because, under Louisiana law, Lakeview Medical sent a short letter (p. 275 of text) to Kadlec Medical which correctly (with a minor exception) stated the dates of Dr. Berry’s tenure at Lakeview Medical. This letter also invited a telephone inquiry about Dr. Berry. The court held that Lakeview Medical’s letter was not misleading. Read the entire excerpt from the court’s opinion carefully. Then, with particular attention to the opinion’s section about the applicable Louisiana law, (text on p.276, from “1. The Affirmative Misrepresentations” through” is correct.” in mind, comment about whether or not Lakeview Medical was correctly let off the hook

ANSWER:

In the Kadlec case, the Lakeview Medical was discharged off the liability owing to the plaintiff and was correctly left off the hook.

According to the brief facts of the case Dr. Berry was terminated from LAA which also resulted in end of his services at Lakeview Medical (a Louisiana Hospital) due to his drug addiction which left him impaired during working hours. In addition to this the investigation committee also found him doing large withdrawals of narcotics from the medical without updating records. Dr. Berry then applied for privileges at Kadlec Medical Centre in Washington State which initiated an enquiry against him to check his background and working records. In response to the same the Lakeview Medical sent a letter stating the working tenure of Dr. Berry at Lakeview. Moreover, two doctors from LAA filled the forms and mentioned Dr. Berry as an ‘excellent’ anesthesiologist which resulted in Kadlec recruiting Dr. Berry in the medical Centre. Due to his continued drug addiction problem, which impaired his judgements during work, a patient was left in vegetative state during her routine surgery.

The family of the patient (plaintiff) moved the court to impose liability on LAA and Lakeview medical as well besides Kadlec and Dr. Berry claiming it was the reference letter from LAA and Lakeview that affirmatively misrepresented them and led to Dr. Berry’s appointment at Kadlec. The court imposed the liability on LAA but reversed the judgement in case of Lakeview Medical and exonerated it.

Lakeview Medical was exonerated in a righteous manner and owed no liability to the plaintiff. According to the Louisiana law “[a]lthough a party may keep absolute silence and violate no rule of law or equity, . . . if he volunteers to speak and to convey information which may influence the conduct of the other party, he is bound to [disclose] the whole truth.”

In the instant case, the Lakeview Medical in their referral letter only mentioned the working tenure of Dr. Berry and remained silent on any of the questions that were asked by the Kadlec Medical Centre in their referral form. Lakeview did not comment on the proficiency and working skills of Dr. Berry which clearly shows that the party exercised its right to remain silent on the questionnaire served by Kadlec, for whatever the reason. Lakeview Medical did not violate any rule of law or equity because it chose to not convey any such information which might have influenced the conduct of the other party. Mere disclosure of the working tenure of an employee cannot give rise to speculations about the working nature or proficiency of the employee. Therefore, the letter sent by Lakeview Medical cannot be treated as misleading or as affirmative misrepresentation because it was not of ‘recommending’ nature.

Hence, the court was correct in holding that Lakeview was not liable based on its alleged affirmative misrepresentation.

References

Kadlec Medical Center; Western Professional Insurance Company v. Lakeview Anesthesia Associates; Lakeview Medical Center LLC; Dr. Mark Dennis; Dr. William J Preau, III. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C06/06-30745-CV0.wpd.pdf

Am. Guar. Co. v. Sunset Realty & Planting Co., 23 So. 2d 409, 455–56 (La. 1944)