• Disruptive Conduct: Dr. Badri's Bad Behavior
  • April 28, 2010
  • Law Firm: Holland & Hart LLP - Denver Office
  • "Disruptive conduct" by a physician as a basis for suspension of medical staff privileges is a standard that is sometimes abused because of the elasticity of its application to conduct which is merely disagreeable or politically insensitive. In the case of Badri v. Huron Hospital, et al, Case No. 1:08cv 1913 (N.D. Ohio, 2010) a federal district judge granted summary judgment against a plaintiff physician whose surgical privileges were suspended by the hospital following an extraordinary series of admittedly inappropriate, offensive and abusive behavior and repeated violations of the hospital’s code of conduct.

    A sample includes the following described by the  court.

    'On May 13, 2004, Dr. Badri was heard complaining in a loud voice that " in order to get promoted around here you have to screw physicians.” Dr. Badri was later observed standing behind Dr. Ravakhoh and motioning as if to “stab him in the back and making a very rude motion as if to have something inserted into Dr. Ravakhoh”s behind.”’

    Following his dismissal Dr.Badri filed a federal lawsuit against the hospital and members of its medical staff claiming that his misconduct was the result of dependency on steroids and other prescription drugs and his emotional impairment all resulting from an automobile accident in 2002.

    Dr. Badri, who initially sought to hide his drug dependency from the defendants asserted in federal court that the defendants should have made accommodations for his psychiatric disability under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). Dr. Badri asserted that despite his obfuscations the defendants should have gleaned that his inappropriate behavior was the result of a “disability” and undertaken accommodation to meet his needs such as forcing him into a rehabilitation program.

    The court, in a 46 page decision, found that Dr.Badri had not only failed to establish a prima facie case for liability, but had also, as a matter of law, failed to overcome the burden of overcoming the rebuttable presumption of immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (“HCQIA”). Dr. Badri’s attorney petitioned the court to allow him to withdraw from the case because of irreconcilable differences with Dr. Badri and office manager. He has reason to be embarrassed for bringing this case. Liability claims resulting from peer review are difficult in the best of cases. The result in this case could have been mailed in and in fact it eventually was.