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

Related Parts of This Source

1,759 chars

insufficient contractual opportunity to support a claim under § 1981. Resp 't' s Br. at 27.

It relies upon three decisions: Jimenez v. WeliStar Health Systems, 596 F.3d 1304 (lith

Cir. 2010); Williams v. Columbus Regional Healthcare Systems, Inc., 499 F. App'x 928

(lIth Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2340 (2013), which is a per curiam decision

based entirely on Jimenez; and an unreported decision from a district court in Missouri,

Adem v. Jefferson Memorial Hospital Association, 2012 WL 5493856 (E.D. Mo. 2012),

that likewise relies on Jimenez.

The plaintiff in Jimenez, a Black physician with a specialty in neurosurgery, sued

WellStar Health Services after its medical care evaluation committee suspended his

medical staff privileges. He asserted three impaired contractual rights: his "contractual

relationship with WellStar," his right to contract with patients and third-party payors, and

his property interest in his profession. Jimenez, 596 F.3d at 1309. The "contractual

,relationship with WellStar" that he relied upon was an alleged "implicit contract with

WellStar, pursuant to which WellStar agreed to grant Jimenez medical staff privileges and,

in tum, Jimenez agreed to treat patients at WellStar hospitals." Id. The Eleventh Circuit

16
1
I
j

I No. 31858-3-111
Sambas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

Court of Appeals noted that WellStar's policies made clear that medical staff privileges do

not confer contract rights, and that Georgia law was in accord. Id. It concluded that

because the suspension of medical staff privileges did not directly implicate any

contractual relationship, it could not be the basis of a § 1981 discrimination claim.