TSHIBAKA v. CARROLL HOSPITAL CENTER

Civil No. JFM-13-2760.

Cimenga Tshibaka, M.D., v. Carroll Hospital Center.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Cimenga M. Tshibaka, Plaintiff, represented by Conrad W. Varner , Varner and Goundry PC.

John Sernulka, Defendant, represented by Alicia Lynn Wilson , Gordon Feinblatt Rothman Hoffberger and Hollander LLC, Charles R. Bacharach , Gordon Feinblatt LLC, Elizabeth Hein , Post and Schell PC, pro hac vice, Kate A. Kleba , Post and Schell PC, pro hac vice & Robin Locke Nagele , Post and Schell PC, pro hac vice.

Carroll Hospital Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alicia Lynn Wilson , Gordon Feinblatt Rothman Hoffberger and Hollander LLC, Charles R. Bacharach , Gordon Feinblatt LLC, Elizabeth Hein , Post and Schell PC, pro hac vice, Kate A. Kleba , Post and Schell PC & Robin Locke Nagele , Post and Schell PC.


MEMO TO COUNSEL RE

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.

Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed the papers submitted in connection with defendant Jaime Elliott's motion to dismiss. The motion (document 100) is granted. I remain of the view that Elliott is entitled to absolute immunity. The Court of Appeals of Maryland has applied the absolute privilege in non-judicial proceedings when "the same policy considerations which underlie the application of the privilege in the judicial sphere are ... present." Imperial v. Drapeau, 716 A.2d 244, 249 (Md. 1998).

In any event, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity under the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act. She was a "person who participate[ d] with or assist[ed] the [professional review] body" with respect to the [professional review action]," pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §1111(a)(1)(d).

To the extent that plaintiff complains about Elliott having discussed the matter with two of her supervisors, before preparing and submitting her formal complaint, she was acting in accordance with the dictates of the Medical Staff Code of Conduct Policy. In any event, plaintiff's claim for damages is based on the fact that her privileges were revoked, not upon Elliott's discussion with her supervisors.

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed as an order.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases