Appeals court backs Stormont Vail
Hospital terminated physician amid dementia concerns
A federal appeals court recently ruled in favor of Stormont Vail Health in a discrimination suit filed by Jeffrey Rhoads, a physician it terminated amid concerns about dementia.
Three judges with the U.S. District Court’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 15 upheld a lower court ruling granting summary judgment to Stormont Vail in Rhoads’ suit, which alleged unlawful failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. A summary judgment is a ruling without a trial.
At one point, Rhoads had rejected an offer from the hospital that would have arranged for him to go from his $305,000-a-year job as a hospitalist to a $15-anhour job as a door screener, court records show.
MollyPatt Eyestone, communications supervisor at Stormont Vail, declined comment April 17 in response to a request from The Capital-Journal.
What happened?
Rhoads, a 1984 graduate of the University of Kansas School of Medicine, was a hospitalist at Stormont Vail when other physicians voiced concern in 2020 that he was showing signs of dementia and his work was steadily declining in quality, the April 15 ruling said.
It said Rhoads requested and was given up to one year of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act in January 2021, the same month he was diagnosed as having mild neurocognitive disorder.
Rhoads acknowledged at that time that if he made a mistake with a patient, it could cause harm or death, the ruling said.
Through their respective attorneys, Rhoads and Stormont Vail sought to identify conditions under which he could return to work, the ruling said. Rhoads suggested Stormont Vail reassign him to an outpatient physician role, in which he would be overseen by a proctor, or reassignment to an administrative role that didn’t require patient care.
Stormont Vail twice broached the possibility of reassignment, including proposing moving Rhoads to the $15-an-hour door screener’s job, but Rhoads declined, the ruling said.
It said Rhoads filed a charge of discrimination in July 2021, Stormont Vail terminated his employment in September 2021, Rhoads subsequently sued Stormont Vail and a district court judge granted Stormont Vail’s motion for summary judgment in its favor in that suit.
What reasons did the appeals court cite for its ruling?
The appeals court agreed April 15 with the district court’s conclusion that reassigning Rhoads to an outpatient physician’s role with a proctor wouldn’t have been reasonable from a financial standpoint for Stormont Vail.
“The cost alone of hiring an additional physician to supervise Dr. Rhoads — between nearly one-half to one-and-a-half million dollars — is unreasonable,” it said. “And the proctoring system at Stormont was not designed to facilitate the indefinite supervision of a physician whose condition could worsen over time.”
Rhoads had failed to meet his required burden of proving he didn’t pose a direct threat to patient safety, the appeals court added
It said Rhoads failed to establish why Stormont Vail would have been liable for failing to offer him reassignment to an administrative job.
“Stormont twice broached the possibility through its negotiations with counsel, and Dr. Rhoads twice declined,” it said. “We cannot, on the record, find a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Rhoads engaged in the interactive process on this proposed accommodation in good faith. He plainly did not.”
Contact Tim Hrenchir at threnchir@gannett.com or 785-213-5934.