Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WHISTLEBLOWERS—7th Cir.: Emergency physician’s retaliation claim after discharge properly dismissed, (Apr 28, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

No reasonable jury could find that the emergency physician’s employer subjected him to an adverse action, the court found.

An Indiana emergency physician’s whistleblower and retaliation claims against a hospital system, Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., concerning disagreements over patient care cannot support a claim under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), the federal appeals court in Chicago, Illinois has held. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the hospital system by the federal district court in Indiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that no reasonable jury could find that the emergency physician’s employer subjected him to an adverse action. The appeals court held that EMTALA was not intended to establish guidelines for patient care, and the emergency physician’s order of intravenous fluids and a rectal temperature reading of a patient were not medically necessary (Partin v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., No. 22-3054 (7th Cir. Apr. 24, 2025)).

An emergency department physician in Indiana ordered intravenous fluids and a rectal temperature reading of a patient without the patient’s consent. When the staff resisted, the physician consulted the hospital legal department. The hospital’s legal department advised the physician that the patient had the right to refuse the procedures. Undeterred, the physician ordered that the patient be administered ketamine, and, once sedated, she received intravenous fluids and a rectal temperature measurement. In the aftermath, emergency room staff members lodged formal complaints about the physician’s conduct. The medical director told the physician that he could either resign or be terminated. The physician resigned.

The physician then sued the hospital system, Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., and its president alleging retaliation in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) in the federal district court in Indiana. The physician also sued under various Indiana state law claims, including defamation per se, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital system and its president. The physician appealed.

EMTALA. The appeals court held that the district court properly ruled in favor of the hospital on the EMTALA claim. To satisfy a case of retaliation as a whistleblower under EMTALA, a plaintiff must show that a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected activity and the employer subjected the plaintiff to an adverse action. EMTALA was enacted as a response to the nationwide problem of hospitals dumping indigent patients who have no health insurance.

In this case, the physician claims that the hospital system violated EMTALA by retaliating Against him for (1) refusing to discharge the patient even though the hospital wanted to do so before she was stable, and (2) reporting to the hospital system’s president that the hospital had failed to sufficiently examine the patient to determine her condition before she was discharged. The appeals court agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury could find that the physician had engaged in EMTALA-protected activity. The patient had hyperthermia and an elevated heart rate by the time the physician ordered intravenous fluids and a rectal temperature reading. The patient had no other emergent medical condition. At most, the physician’s arguments demonstrate a disagreement as to how best to treat the patient’s emergency medical conditions once she had been diagnosed. But such professional disagreements are beyond EMTALA’s reach. The panel recognized that EMTALA was not intended to establish guidelines for patient care, to replace available state remedies, or to provide a federal remedy for medical negligence. The Seventh Circuit recognized that EMTALA permits suit only when the plaintiff reported an existing EMTALA violation, and not a potential future EMTALA violation. Therefore, the EMTALA claim fails.

State law claims. The Seventh Circuit also agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the physician on the state law claims for defamation per se, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and related claims. In analyzing the defamation per se claim, the appeals court found that no rational jury could conclude that statements by a hospital nurse defamed the physician. Furthermore, qualified privilege is available to protect personnel evaluation in formation communicated in good faith.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the hospital system and its president to dismiss all claims.

The case is No. 22-3054.

Judge: Lee, J.

Attorneys: Michael C. Merrick (Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird LLP) for William R. Partin. John R. Hofmann (Waters, Tyler, Hoffman & Scott) for Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. d/b/a Baptist Health Floyd and Daniel J. Eichenberger.

Companies: Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. d/b/a Baptist Health Floyd

Cases: Whistleblowers Retaliation Discharge IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews