Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Mich.: Doctor who was required to undergo psychiatric exam can’t advance ADA claims, (Dec 18, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

As long as the employer shows it has a reasonable basis to order a fitness-for-duty exam, the court will not inquire into its actual motivations for doing so.

Given evidence that an anesthesiologist was becoming overly risk-averse, treating fewer patients than expected, delaying surgeries or refusing to participate, and constantly talking about being watched, no reasonable jury could find his hospital employer lacked an objective basis for requiring him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, a federal district court in Michigan ruled. Accordingly, the court found the hospital was entitled to summary judgment on the doctor’s ADA claims (Robitaille v. Trinity Health Grand Rapids, No. 1:24-cv-1336 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2025)).

Power outage. In November 2023, the hospital’s computer system experienced an unplanned outage that extended into the following day. System outages can make surgeries less safe for patients and the doctor became concerned that the hospital did not have proper policies for mitigating risks during outages.

Policy violation. At a department-wide meeting, he expressed his concerns about the safety risks of conducting elective surgeries during outages. According to a colleague who led the meeting, the doctor raised his concerns “in a very disruptive manner.” The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) filed a formal complaint with HR, which found his actions violated the hospital’s Code of Conduct and warned him that future issues could “result in further corrective action, up to and including termination.”

Subsequently, a hospital committee held a meeting about ongoing issues relating to the doctor’s professionalism. He had become more risk-averse regarding patient treatment and would frequently seek advice from his supervisor about patients. In general, the supervisor described the doctor as acting more like a resident in training than a fully qualified doctor.

Treatment of patients. In January 2024, a clinical supervisor at the hospital sent an email to the Director of Surgical Services indicating that there had been issues with the doctor’s treatment of three patients that day: He had declined to treat one patient, letting the supervisor do so instead, and caused two other surgeries to be delayed. The supervisor testified that the doctor was also becoming unable to complete his medical duties.

Paranoia. Subsequently, the supervisor sent the CMO an email stating that the doctor’s “paranoia” was affecting his ability to see patients and function as a member of the team and stating that his fellow colleagues “are noticing an increasing amount of paranoia and risk aversion.”

On February 15, the doctor was informed that his clinical privileges were being suspended. The hospital’s Medical Executive Committee (MEC) met on March 6 to address the suspension. His supervisor provided a report summarizing the issues with the doctor. These included the fact that he was extremely risk averse and had shifted from doing what was best for the patient to how he could protect himself from legal liability; his inability to coordinate care for complex patients, requiring “guidance” from his supervisor; his “increasingly heightened supervision of less complex patients resulting in extreme inefficiency,” which sometimes would force other doctors to take on his cases; his disruptive behavior at the staff meeting; and evidence of his “paranoia,” such as telling nurses he was being watched and followed and that the administration was “out to get him.”

Psychiatric evaluation. The MEC upheld and continued the summary suspension at its meeting. Before the MEC would reconsider the suspension, it required the doctor to complete a drug test and a forensic psychiatric evaluation. He agreed to take a drug test, which was negative, but refused to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

The doctor remained suspended through August 2024, when his clinical privileges at the hospital were set to expire. He applied to renew his privileges, but the MEC recommended denial of his application. The peer review committee issued a report recommending that he not be reinstated because he “exhibit[ed] a range of disruptive, unprofessional and seemingly paranoid behavior that... was detrimental to fostering an environment of safe, effective, efficient and quality patient care.” The MEC subsequently affirmed this recommendation.

The doctor sued the hospital for employment discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and state law. The hospital moved for summary judgment.

ADA medical examination claim. The hospital argued that there was ample evidence suggesting the doctor was acting paranoid, not performing his medical duties, and potentially endangering patients. The MEC was told that he was becoming overly risk-averse, treating fewer patients than expected, delaying surgeries or refusing to participate, and constantly talking about being watched. The doctor did not dispute that he engaged in this behavior. Given those facts, said the court, no reasonable jury could find the hospital lacked an objective basis for requiring him to undergo drug testing and a psychiatric evaluation. An anesthesiologist who acts unpredictably can endanger patients’ lives. It was thus reasonable for the MEC to be concerned about the doctor’s unexplained behavior, and to try to determine via medical examination if the behavior was the result of drug use or mental illness.

The doctor contended that the medical exam was unreasonable, but the court was not persuaded. It was reasonable for the MEC to suspect that something was amiss, said the court, and to infer that drug use could be a potential cause. In addition, the evidence provided reason to think he may have needed psychiatric help. The MEC based its decision on a pattern of concerning behavior, the court noted.

Finally, the doctor argued that the MEC’s proffered explanation for its disciplinary action was mere pretext, and that the MEC intended to retaliate against him for raising safety issues about the system outage policies. But this argument also missed the mark, the court stated. The test for whether a medical exam was warranted is an objective one. The individual who decides to require a medical examination must have a reasonable belief based on objective evidence that the employee’s behavior threatens a vital function of the business. Although a business-related concern must be present, an employer need not be motivated by that concern: to the contrary, there is no need to assess an employer’s intent in ordering a fitness-for-duty examination. Here, because the hospital had an objectively sound basis for ordering an exam, it was entitled to summary judgment.

ADA retaliation claim. The ADA also provides that “[n]o person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter.” The doctor argued that the hospital violated this provision by ending his employment because he opposed its demand for a medical exam. However, said the court, there was no evidence the hospital acted unlawfully in ordering the medical exam, or that the doctor had a reasonable belief the hospital acted unlawfully in doing so. Accordingly, the hospital was entitled to summary judgment on his ADA retaliation claim.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-1336.

Judge: Jarbou, H.

Attorneys: Robert Michael Howard (Cunningham Dalman) for Joseph Christophe Isaac Robitaille. David A. French (Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman) for Trinity Health Grand Rapids.

Companies: Trinity Health Grand Rapids

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination MichiganNews