Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/318583.pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,763 chars

by laws provide, "Each physician, regardless of his/her assigned staff category, or

exercising of temporary privileges under Section 3.5, is expected to: ... (f) participate in

an emergency room on-call schedule and hospital consultation call schedule, if a member

of the active physician staff." CP at 254.

When Dr. Sambas ivan became ineligible for renewal of his interventional

cardiology privileges after the Kadlec's board adopted the retroactively applied volume

proficiency standard, he ceased to have the opportunity to accept call coverage contracts.

As observed by the United States Supreme Court in Domino's Pizza, 546 U.S. at

476, the impaired contractual relationship required to assert a § 1981 claim "need not

already exist, because § 1981 protects the would-be contractor along with those who

already have made contracts." Domino's Pizza makes clear that the Supreme Court has

never retreated from what should be obvious from reading the text of the
statute: Section 1981 offers relief when racial discrimination blocks the
creation of a contractual relationship, as well as when racial discrimination
impairs an existing contractual relationship, so long as the plaintiff has or
would have rights under the existing or proposed contractual relationship.

No. 31858-3-111
Sam bas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

Id. Dr. Sambasivan's evidence is sufficient to present a jury issue whether his

opportunity to enter into future call coverage contracts was lost when Kadlec took its

challenged action.

Kadlec argues, however, that the doctor's loss of the contracting opportunity was

merely a "collateral consequence" of losing clinical privileges-and thereby an