A federal appeals court has upheld a trial court's dismissal of an Egyptian surgeon's civil rights lawsuit against the Arkansas hospital that revoked his privileges.
Nabil K. Bissada, MD, sued the Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock, arguing that his suspension was the result of an improper peer review process and discrimination against his nationality.
The hospital replied, and the courts concurred, that Dr. Bissada had agreed to a negotiated settlement over the suspension, and that he failed to provide evidence of discrimination.
Dr. Bissada was chief of pediatric urology in November 2006 when hospital administrators raised concerns about his practices and expressed a lack of confidence in his abilities.
Members of the hospital's medical staff executive committee investigated the concerns and interviewed Dr. Bissada. Their report, issued in December, found fault with his consistent surgical delays, frequent case cancellations, incomplete follow-up care, high complication rate, insufficient communication with fellow physicians and patients' parents, and poor judgment.
The committee consulted an outside pediatric urologist the following month for his views. After he remarked on "a pattern of highly irregular scheduling activities" and a "concerningly high" complication rate after certain surgeries, court records say, the committee voted to revoke Dr. Bissada's staff privileges.
Dr. Bissada requested an appeal hearing, which was scheduled for August 2007. Before it took place, however, attorneys for Dr. Bissada and the hospital negotiated a settlement in which the hospital would reinstate the doctor's privileges if he didn't reapply for them. The settlement also agreed on the language through which the suspension would be reported to a national practitioner data bank.
After the settlement took effect, however, Dr. Bissada sued the hospital, claiming that the suspension hadn't been conducted through the proper process and that he'd understood the settlement to be a suggestion, not a closed deal. He also argued that his discharge was sparked by his Egyptian origins.
In February 2009, the hospital asked a federal trial court to dismiss the case, which it did, and which the federal appeals court affirmed on June 16, 2011.
The hospital's report to the data bank followed the settlement agreement, the court wrote, and was "done with Dr. Bissada's consent. Under these circumstances, Dr. Bissada cannot now claim he suffered an adverse employment action because the action was taken with his knowledge and consent."
He also "failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find any of [the hospital's] acts were a pretext for national origin discrimination," it wrote.
An attorney for the hospital praised the court's ruling but otherwise declined comment. Mr. Bissada's attorney did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
David Bernard
