T h e H on or abl e Se an F. Cox, U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Cour t f or t h e Eas t er n D i s t ri ct of M i ch i g an , s i t t i n g by * d e sig n a tio n . NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0876n.06 Filed: De cembe r 20, 2007 No. 07-3156

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT RAMA N TALWAR, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. CA THOL IC HEA LTHC A R E P A RT NE RS; ST. RITA’S MEDICAL E XECUTIVE COMMITTEE; HE R BERT S CHUMM ; DAVID IMLER; ST. RITA’S MEDICAL CENTER, De fend ant s- App e lle e s.

___________________________ _____________/ ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED

STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE NO RT HER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O

BEFORE: MERRITT and CLAY, Circ uit Jud ges; and COX, District Judge. * CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge . Plaintiff, Dr. Raman Ta lwar, appea ls from an orde r g ranting summary judgme nt on Plaintiff’s claims of ra cial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and brea ch of contra ct in favor

of De fenda

nts Catholic Healthca

re Par tn er s , St. R ita’s Medica l Ex ecutive Commi ttee, Her

bert Schumm, Da

vid Imler and St. Rita’s Medica l Ce nter. Plaintiff a lso a ppeals the district court’s de nial of his motion to c ompel discovery and its finding that Defe ndants wer e entitledNo. 07-3156

2 to p e e r r e vie w i mmunit

y purs ua nt t o O hio Re vi sed Co de § 23 05 .2 51 . F or the re a so ns se t f

or th below, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t. BACK GR OUND Plaintiff, Raman Talwa

r (“D r. Talwa

r”) , was born in I

ndia and immigrated to t h e United States in 1980. Dr. Talwa r later beca me license d as a phy sician and e stablished a medica l prac tice in L ima, Ohio. I n 1991, Dr. Talwar was gra nted m edica l staff privileg es at St. Rita’s Medical Center (“St. Rita’s”) w here he pra ctices g ener al and va scular surg ery . Dr. Ta lwar’ s appointment to the medical staf

f wa s made pursua

nt to the Me d i cal St aff

By laws (“ By

laws”) and the Me dical Staff Credentials Manua l (“Cre dentials Manual” ) of the hospital. Th e Sur g ic a l and

I nv a siv e Pr oc e dure Re view C om mi ttee (“ SI PR” ) o f S t. R ita ’s is a

c o m m i t t e e t h a tr e v i e w s m e d i c a l c a s e s f o r qu a l i t y a s s u r an c e p u r s u a n t t o S t
. R i t a ’ s B y l aw s . In September of 2003, SI PR conducted a qua lity of ca re r eview of

one of D r. Talwa

r’s va scular sur g ery
case s. At the conc lusion of the revie w, SI PR concluded that Dr. T alwar ’s ca se ra ised quality of ca re
conce rns and f

orwa rded its finding s to the St. R ita’s Medica l Ex ecutive Committee (“ MEC”) for further action. Pursuant to t h e By l aw s, MEC is responsible for the e valuation of the c linical competenc y

of medica l staff at St. R ita’s and may reque st investigations of medic al staff

. On Se pte mbe r 2 3, 20 03 , M EC i nf or me d D r. Ta lw ar of

SI PR’ s f ind ing s and

a sk e d h im t o respond to the qua lity of car e conc erns in wr iting. Af ter re viewing the ca se and D r. Talwa r’s wr itten response , MEC hired the Gre eley Company , a thi rd-pa rty revie w orga

nization, t o conduct a

partial revie w of Dr . Talwa

r’s pra ctice. T he Gr eele y Com pany

found quality

of ca re c oncer ns with Dr. Talwa r’s pra ctice in e leven of

the ninetee n case s review ed.No. 07-3156

3 I n April of 2004, afte r reviewing the findi ng s of t he Greele y Company , and pursua nt to the By laws and Cre dentials Manual, MEC initiated a for mal investigation. Dr. Talwa r was advised of the in ves tig a tio n a

nd the Gr e e le y

fi nd ing s b y

ME C me mbe rs Dr . H e rb e rt Sc humm a

nd Dr . D a vid I mler. Dr. Schumm and D r. I mler re q u es t ed that Dr. Ta lwar r efr ain from e x erc ising his surg ical privileg es duringthe pende ncy o f t h e i n vestig ation. Dr. Ta lwar w as also per mitted to present an expert repor

t for the investig ative committee’ s consideration. After consideringthe interview with D r. Talwa r, the Gr eele y

repor t as well as the r eport of Dr . T a lw ar’ s expe rt , the inv e sti g a tiv e c omm itt e e de te rm ine d that the re wa s in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to substantiate the quality

of ca re c oncer ns raised by

SI PR and recommende d that the investigation be te rm inate d. Th e c omm itt e e a lso re c omm e nd e d that ME C re sto re Dr

. Ta lw ar’ s su rg ic a l pr ivi le g e s. Following the conc lusion of the investigation, Dr. Talwa r broug ht suit ag ainst St. R ita’s, Dr. Schumm, Dr. I m l er an dCatholic Hea lthcare Partners f or a numbe r of c laims, including ra cial discrimination under 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1981 and brea ch of c ontrac t. Tal war v . Ca tho lic He alt

hc ar e Pa rtn e rs , 2006 WL 3526792 (N.D. O hio 2006). Duringthe cour se of disc o v ery , Plaintiff filed a mot ion to c omp e l dis c ov e ry of do c ume ntatio n r e late d to ME C de lib e ra tio ns le a din g up to t

he re qu e st for a n external revie w of his c ases as we ll as the investigatory committee’s fina l report. The district court de nied Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery

. Def endants late r moved for

summary

judgme nt, asserting that Plaintiff failed to pre sent sufficie nt evidence to supp o rt h i s cl aim s. Moreove r, De fenda nts argued that eve n if Plaintiff established liability , they

wer e prote cted unde r Ohio’s pe er revie w immunity statute. The district

c ourt g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f D e fe nd ants on a ll c la ims

. Pla int if f no w tim e ly

a pp e a ls.No. 07-3156

4 DI SCU SSIO N Stan dard of Revie w T h i s C o u rt r e v i e w s a d i s t r i c t c o u rt ' s g r an t o f s u m m ary jud g me nt de novo . Monette v

. Electronic Data Sy

s. Corp. , 90 F .3 d 11 73 , 1 17 6 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 6) . Summa

ry jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr iate if , purs ua nt to Rul e 56 (c ) of the F e de ra l Rul e s of Civ il Pr oc e dure , the ple a din g s, dep os iti on s,
answ e r s to in te r

r o g a to r ie s , an d a dmi s s io n s o n f il e , to g e th e r w it

h th e a f f id a v it s , if an y , “ s how that the re is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s t o any mat eri a l f a c t and that th e mov ant i s e nti tle d to a jud g me nt a s a matter of la

w.” F ed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As the moving parties, Defe ndants bear the burde n of showing the abse nce of

a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as to at least one e ssential el em en t o n eac h of Plaintiff's c laims. Se e Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Plaintiff, as the nonmov ingpa

rt y , mu st the n pr e se nt su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e fr om wh ic h a jur y c ou ld r e a so na

bly fi nd fo r h im. See A nderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). This C o urt must then determine “whe ther the e vidence prese nts sufficie nt disag ree ment to require submissi on to a jury or whe ther it is so one-sided that one p ar t y m u s t preva il as a matter of law.” Id. a t 25 1- 52 . In ma kin g thi s deter mination, t h i s C o u rt m ust draw a ll reasona ble infer ence s in favor of Plaintiff. See National En te rs. , I nc . v . S mi th , 114 F.3d 561, 563 ( 6th Cir. 1997). I. SECTI ON 1981 CLAIM OF RACIAL DISCRIMIN ATION Enac ted as pa

rt of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides that “[a]ll persons wi thi n th e jur isd ic tio n o f t he Un ite d Stat e s sha ll ha ve the same ri g ht in ev e ry State and Te rr ito ry to make a nd enfo rc e co n t ra cts ” without reg ard to ra ce. 42 U .S.C. § 1981. The statute defines the phrase “make and enf

orce contra cts” to include the “making , perf ormanc e, modification, andNo. 07-3156

5 termination of contra cts, and the enjoy ment of all bene fits, privileg es, terms, a nd conditions of the contra ctual re l at i o n ship.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b). B efor e the district cour t, Plainti ff a lleg ed that he

wa s d isc ri min a te d a g a ins t “ wi th r e sp e c t [to ] the te rm s, c on dit ion s, and pr ivi le g e s of his c on tr a c t w ith defe ndant bec ause of

color.” (J.A. at 14) 1. Contrac tual Relationshi p Between the P artie s “Section 1981 off

ers r elief w hen ra cial discrimination bl ocks the c reation of a contra ctual

re la tio ns hip , as we ll as wh e n ra c ia l disc ri min a tio n impa ir s an exis tin g c on tr a c tua l r e latio ns hip , s o long a s the plaintiff has or would have r ights under the existi ng or propose d contra ctual relationship.” Do mi no ’s Pi zza , I nc . v . M c Do na ld , 546 U.S. 470, 476 ( 2006). Def endants a rg ue that Plaintiff may

not preva il i n his § 1981 claim beca use he ha s not established the existence of a contra ctual rig ht that was alleg edly blocked or

impaired by

rac ial discrimination. Although Plaintiff acknow ledg es that he does not have a formal employ ment contra ct wit h the hos pital, he submits that the hospital’s By

laws and Cre dentials Manual constitute contra cts. Both pa rties ag ree that Ohio law controls for the purpose of deter mining whether a

contra ct exist s. Apply ing O hio law, the district court c oncluded that Plaintiff did not present suffic ient evidenc e fr om which a jury could find that a contr act e x isted betwee n the par ties. Under Ohio law, staff

by laws may

constitute a contra ct wher e “the re can be found in the by laws an intent to be bound.” Mu no z v . F low e r H os p ., 507 N.E.2d 360, 365 (Ohio C t. App. 1985). Acc ording ly , we examine the lang uag e of the B y laws and Cre dentials Manual to dete rmine whe ther the par ties evince d an intent to be bound. See B ouquett v. St. Elizabeth Corp. , 43 Ohio St. 3d 50,No. 07-3156

6 52 (O hio 19 89 ) (“ [B ]ef

or e we c an de te rm ine if a

pp e lla nt m e dic a l c e nte r i s b ound by the sta ff bylaws , we must consider

the languag e of the by laws at issue.” ). The Cre dentials Manual pr ovides that the Manua l may be re vised or am ended by the h o s p i t a l ’ s B o ar d

o f T r u s t e e s “ o ni t s o w n i n i t i a t i v e ” a f t e r p r o v i d i n g n o t i c e t o M E C

. ( J

. A

. a t1 7 8 ) In addition, the prea

mble to the By

laws state that the pr ocedur es promulg ated to insure the quality of medical c are at the hospital are “subjec t to the ultim ate a ut h o ri t y o f the hospital’s B oard of Trustee s.” (J.A. at 114) I n interpre ting simil ar by laws and g uidelines contain i n g condit ional lang uag e such a s “subject to” o r “o n its own init iative,” Ohio c ourts have f ound that the pre sence of such languag e is evidenc e of a lack of mutuality betwee n the par

ties. See M

unoz v. Flower Hosp. , 507 N.E.2d 360, 365 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). For example, in Munoz v. Flower Hospital , the Ohio Court of Appea ls considere d a bre ach of contra ct claim alleg ed by an anesthe siologist afte r being denied rea ppointment by the def

endant hospital. 507 N.E.2d at 362. The c ourt reje cted the pla inti ff ’s co n t enti on that the hospital’s staff bylaws c on sti tut e d a c on tr a c t be c a us e the y we re “ su

bje c t to the ult imate a

uth or ity of the a

pp lic a ble g overning bodies,” including the hospital’s board of trustees. Id. at 365. The c ourt conc luded that “[t] he obv i ous interpre tation of the bylaws’ pr eamble is that the truste es ar e, and the ref ore the hospital is, not to be bound by the staff by laws and that there is no contr actua l relationship arising from these staff by laws because the re is no mutuality of oblig ation betwee n the par ties.” Id. ; ac c or

d Ho lt v . G oo d S

am ar ita n H

os p. an d H e alt h Ct r ., 590 N.E.2d 1318, 132 2 (O h i o Ct. App. 1990); W ilkey v . McCullough-Hy de Memorial Hosp. , 2 00 7 WL 30 47 23 4, a t *1 0 ( S.D . O hio 20 07 ); Nilavar

v . Mer cy Hea lt hs

y ste m- W este rn Oh io , 494 F.Supp. 2d 604, 622-23 (S.D. Ohio 2005)

. But seeNo. 07-3156

7 Rahimi v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., Inc ., 1997 WL 33426269, at *6 (S.D. Ohio 1997) (unpublished) (finding staff by laws ex presse d an intent to be bound whe re the hospital board of truste es vested a rig ht in the medical staff t o disciplinary hear ing and appeal procedure , which plac ed an oblig ation

o n t h e b o ar d

of tr us te e s) ; Awadalla v. Robinson Mem’l Hosp., 19 92 WL18 83 33 , at *3 (O hio Ct. App. 1992) (unpublished) (finding staff by laws could c ons t i t ute a c ontrac t where the cha irman of the bo ard of tr us te e s te sti fi e d “ that the bo ard ne ve r r e lay e d to the me dic a l st a ff an in te nti on

no t to be bound by

the bylaws”)

. Ba sed upon the simil arity of the languag e conta ined in the B y laws and C re d entials Manual a

nd the languag e at issue in Munoz , it w o u ld s e e m t h a t n o c o n tr a c tual

re la tio ns hip e xiste d b e tw e e n th e pa rt ie s. Courts apply ing O hio law, howeve r, have also examined ext rinsic evid en ce to determine whet h er a h ospital intended to be bound. See Nilavar , 494 F.Supp. 2d at 622-23 ( analy zing evidenc e of nego t i ations betwee n hospital and plaintiff in deter mining whe ther staf

f bylaws constituted a contract under Ohio law). Plaintiff in the instant case of fer s a letter of

rea ppointment date d D e c e mbe r 3 , 2 00 4 a s e vid e nc e that D e fe nd ant i nte nd e d to be bo und. Th e lette r s tate s, in pert in ent part , “[ t] hi s re app oi nt men t i s s ub jec t t o al l t erm s an d co nd it io ns of y ou r i ni ti al a pp oin tme nt, any previous appointments, the by laws, rules and regulations, crede ntials manual and policies a nd proce dures of

this hospit al and medic al staff that are in f

orce duringthe term of your re appointment.” (J.A. at 294) The letter , howeve r, sheds l i t t l e li g ht on the intent of the par ties to be contra ctually

bound by the proc edure s set forth in the B y laws or the Cre dentials Manual. The letter mer ely rea ffirms that Plaintiff’s appointment wi l l be subjec t to ex isting g uidelines and policies a s repr esente d by theNo. 07-3156

8 By laws and Cre dentials Manual, both past and present. The self-dec lare d purpose of the By laws and Credentials Manua l is to protect the best intere sts of patients, reg ulate activities of the medical staf f,

and ins ur e the pr ov isi on

of qu a lity me dic a l c are fo r t

he ho sp ita l’ s p a tie nts , n ot t o d e c lare or c re a te contra ctual rig hts of individual mem b er s of the medic al staff . Howeve r, eve n assuming that the By laws and Cre dentials Manual do c reate a contra ctual relationship betwe en the parties, we f ind that Plaintiff has not produce d sufficie nt evidenc e to sustain his claim of ra cial discrimination under § 1981. 2. P rim a F acie Case of Racial Discrim ination “A plaintiff ma

y establish a cla im of discrimination e ither by introducing direc t e vidence of discrimination, or by

proving circ umstantial evidence which would support an i n fe re nce of discrimination.” J

oh ns on v . U

niv . o f Cin c inn ati , 215 F.3d 561, 572 ( 6th Cir. 2000). In the instant

case , Plaintiff has not offe red any direc t evidenc e of rac ial discrimination. “[D]i rec t evidenc e is that

e vid e nc e wh ic h, if

be lie ved , requ ir e s th e c on c lus ion that un lawf

ul d isc ri min a tio n w a s at le a st a motivating fa ctor in the e mploy er' s actions.” Jack lyn v. Sc hering Plough HealthcareProds. Sales Cor p ., 176 F.3d 921, 926 ( 6th Cir.1999). I t does not require the fac t finder to dra w any infere nces to rea ch that conc lusion. Nguyen v . City of Cl eve land , 229 F.3d 559, 563 ( 6th Cir.2000). We have held that to preva il in a claim of ra ce disc rimination under § 1981 base d on circ umstantial evidence , a pla int if f m us t me e t th e tr ipa

rt ite sta nd ard of pr oo f fo r Ti tle VI I c a se s e sta bli sh e d b y

the Sup re me Court in McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Te x as De p't of C om mu nit y Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248 (1981). Jack son v. Quane

x Corp. , 191 F.3d 6 4 7 , 658 (6th Cir. 19 99 ); Mi tc he ll v . To le do Ho sp ., 964 F.2d 577, 582 ( 6th Cir. 1992).No. 07-3156

W e have reco gni zed t hat “ [t ]here i s am p l e p reced ent for req ui ri ng a d i st i nct form ul at i o n of t he b urden shi f t i ng 1 f r amework i n di f

f er i ng f act ual ci r cums t anc es . ” Chr i s t i an , 25 2 F. 3d at 869

. Al t houg h t he r el at i ons hi p bet ween t he part i es i s not t he ki nd of emp l oy ment r el at i ons hi p t o whi ch t he M cD on nel l D ou gl as- B urdi ne t est is t radit i o nal l y ap p l i ed , we f i nd tha t t h e p a ra m e te rs o f t h is tes t ar e su ff ic ie n tly a p p lica b le to this c o n te x t. See Benj am i n v . Br achman , 2007 W L 2264513, at * 1 5 (6th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (unpub l i sh e d ). B ut s ee J eung v. M cKr ow , 26 4 F.Sup p . 2d 55 7 (E

. D

. M i ch 2 0 0 3 ) ( ap p l y i ng modi f i ed M cDonnel l D ougl as - Bur di ne tes t i n § 1 9 8 1 c la im a risin g fro m ter m ina tio n o f m e d ic a l staff p riv ileg e s)

. 9 Under McD onnell Douglas-Burdine , Plaintiff must est abli sh a prima f acie case of ra cial discrimination. McDonnell Doug las, 411 U. S

. at 8 02. A prima fa cie c ase is esta blished where a plaintiff demonstrate s that 1) he is a me mber of a protec ted class; 2) he was qua lified for his job and pe rf or me d it satis fa c tor ily ; 3) de sp ite his qu a lif ic a tio ns and

perform ance, he su ff

e re d a n a dv e rs e employ ment action; and 4) t hat he was replace d by a per son outside of the protec ted class or treated l e s s f a v o r a b l y. Johnson , 2 1 5 F. 3 d at 5 7 2 -7 3 (c i t i n g McD onnell Douglas , 41 1 U. S. a t 80 2) . I f t his 1 prima fa cie c ase is m et , “[ t ] h e b urden of production then shifts to the def endant to ar

ticulate a leg itimate, non-discriminatory rea son for its actions.” Christ ian v

. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 252 F.3d 862, 868 (6th Cir. 2001). To ulti m at el y

p re v ai l , P l ai n t i ff

m u s ts h o w t h at De fe n d an t s ’ p ro ffered r ace neutra l expl anation “wa s not its t rue r eason, but a prete x t for discrimination.” I d. Plaint i ff may meet this burden by showing 1) that the rea sons g iven have no fac tual basis; 2) the stated rea sons w ere not the ac t u al

rea sons; or 3) that the re asons g iven wer e insuffic ient to justi fy the def endant’ s action. Johnson , 215 F.3d at 574. Whil e the parties do not dispute the first three elements of the prim a fa cie c ase, the y do dispute, howeve r, whether Plaintiff of fer ed sufficie nt proof that he w as treated less favorably than others outside of his protec ted class. Be fore the district court, Plaintiff asse rted that he believed he was t h e victim of rac ial discrimination. As proof, Plaintiff submitt ed an aff idavit stating that he had not prac ticed medicineNo. 07-3156

10 in a manner war

ranting investigation. Plaintiff f urther argued that “the Def endants did with malice and evil intent, wrong fully investigated [si c] D r. Talwa r due to his rac e and y et did not so treat other simil arly situated white doctors.” (J.A. at 264) Although Plaintiff points to no other doctor outside of his pr ote c te d c la ss t

hat w a s tr e a te d d if

fe re ntl y , h e argue s th a t the fa ilure of the ho sp ita l to c omp ly with the investigative proce dures set forth in t he B y laws and Cre dentials Manual by initiating two inv e sti g a tio ns de mon str a te s th a t he wa s tr e a te d le ss f a vo ra bly th an indiv idu a ls o uts ide of his protec ted class. We disag ree . We have sug g ested that the f ailure to follow intern al d i s ciplinary proce dures c onstitut es evidenc e of discr imination. See D urante v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n , 1 99 0 WL 68 85 6, a t *3 (6 th Cir. 1990) (unpublished) ( “Evidenc e of dispar ate a pplication of di s ci p linary proce dures in the termination dec ision is m ere ly evidenc e re levant to t h e u l t i mate question of discr iminatory dis c ha rg e .” ); Felder v . Nortel Networks Corp. , 187 F. App’ x 586, 595 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (sug g esting that failure to adher e to interna l disciplinary proce dures m ay s erve as evide nce of dis c ri min a tio n) . Pl a int if

f ha s not, ho we ve r, e sta

bli sh e d that this pr oc e ss h a s b e e n a pp lie d d if fe re ntl y to othe r non-minority members of the staff, nor has Plaintiff put forwa rd the names of othe r doctors who wer e tre ated more favor ably by MEC in other quality of care investigations by being subjected to a sin gle in ves ti g a tio n und e r s imi lar c ir c ums tanc e s o r e va luate d und e r m or e le nie nt s tand ard s. Rather, a ll we have befor e us on the q u es t i o n of whe ther Plaintiff wa s treate d less favor ably than others outside of hi s protecte d class ar e Plaintiff’s conc lusory alleg ations. Such “conc lusory and unsupported alleg ations, rooted in speculation, do not meet the burden” of t he prima facie case . Be ll v. Ohio State Univ. , 351 F.3d 240, 253 ( 6th Cir. 2003).No. 07-3156

11 Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso c or re c tly c on c lud e d that, a ssumin g that Pla int if f c an e sta bli sha pr ima fa c ie c a se of

dis c ri min a tio n, De fe nd ants of fe re d a le g iti ma te , r a c e -n e utr a l e xplanatio n. De fe nd ants

asser t that patient safe ty

was the ba sis for the commenc ement of a n investigation of Plainti ff’ s prac tice. Acco rd ing to De fenda nts, the investigation at issue stemmed from a Septe mber 2003 revie w of one of Plaintiff’s surg ical ca ses. I n satisfying the ir burden of production bef

ore the district court, De fenda

nts presente d evidenc e of the Gre eley repor t which su g g e s te d

th a t P la in tif f’s tre atment of patients wa s ina p p ropriate in eleven out of nineteen c ases r eviewe d. Plaintiff has offe red no

e vid e nc e to re fute thi s e xplanatio n a s pr e te xtua l. I ns te a d, Pla int if f m e re ly argue s th a t patie nt s a fe ty is n o e xcu se to c on tr a ve ne e sta bli sh e d p oli c y . A g a in, su c h a c on c lus or

y a lle g a tio n is wh oll y insufficient a

nd does l ittle to demonstrate that patient s afe ty “wa s not [ Def endants’] true r eason, but

a prete x t f or discrimination.” Christ ian , 2 52 F .3 d at 86 8. Th e re fo re , Pl a int if f’ s § 19 81 c la im mus t fail as he did not rebut Def endants’ r ace neutra l expl anation and the ref ore failed to meet his burde n under the McD onnell Douglas-Burdine tripartite test. I I

. B REA CH OF CO NT RA CT Plaintiff alleg es that the district court i m p ro p erly g rante d summary

judgme nt with respec t to h is b re a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im. Plai ntif f a sse rt s th a t D e fe nd ants br e a c he d th e ir c on tr a c t w ithhim in three w ay s: 1) the commenc ement of two se parate investig ations of alleg ed improprieties; 2) the failure to disclose the initiation of an investigation; and 3) the orde ring of a temporary suspension pending the outcome of

the investig ation. Assuming the e x istence of a contr act, we ad d re s s eac h of these c ontentions in turn.No. 07-3156

12 1. Multiple Investigations of Alleged Im proprieties Plaintiff asserts that De fenda nts breac hed their c ontrac t by constituting two investig ative committees rathe r than the sing le committee that is autho ri z ed i n t he Crede ntials Manual. The Credentials Manual provides that the MEC shall act on all re quests for a n investigation. I t also notes that outside consultants may be used by

the MEC. Th e Cr e d e ntials Manual’s investig ation proce dure pr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s: The Medic al Executive Commit tee sha ll meet as soon as pra ctical a fter rec eiving a request for an inve stigation. I f, in the opinion of the Medic al Ex ecutive Committee, the re quest contains sufficie nt inf ormation to warr ant an investig ation, the Medica l Ex ecutive Committee shall conduc t an investigation, or shall appoint an ind i v idual or a c ommitt ee to c onduct the investigation. (J.A. at 166) Pla int if f a sse rt s that bo th the ME C and an a pp oin te d c omm itt e e c ondu cte d i nv e sti g a tio ns , in contrave ntion of the provisions of the Crede ntials Manual. Afte r takingall rea sonable infe renc es in Plainti ff’ s favor , we f ind that there is insuffic ient evidenc e to support a f inding that two investigations took pl ace . The B y laws provide MEC with broad a uthority to consider “ information” prior to in it iati n g a f

o r ma l inv e s ti g a ti o n , s u c h a s th e u s e o f o u ts id e c o n s u lt an ts to s u b s ta n ti ate a n alleg ation of inade quate patient car e. Consideration of a quality of ca re c omplaint prior to the

commence ment of a f

ormal investig ative committee by seekingadditional i nformation, ther efor e, does not constitute a sepa rate investigation. Moreover , as De fenda nts point out , even if

two investigations took pl ace , the Crede ntials Manual authorizes MEC to take “any and all other a ction deeme d appropr iate under the circ umstances” upon the conc lusion of an investig ation. (J.A. at 168)No. 07-3156

13 Th e re fo re , th e ini tiatio n o f t wo inv e sti g a tio ns do e s n ot b y its e lf c on sti tut e a vio latio n o f t he B y laws . Thus, we f

ind that Defe ndants wer e entitled to summary judgme nt as a matter

of law on Plaintiff’s claim of bre ach of

contra ct as a

result of “ two investigations.” 2. F ailure to Disclose t he Initiation of an Investigation
Pla int if f c la ims tha

t the De fe nd ants br e a c he d the ir c on tr a c t thr ou g h the ir fa ilure to d isc los e the initiation of an investigation. The Credentials Manua l states “[t] he medica l staff may be notified that an investig ation is being conducte d . .

. .” (J.A. at 166 (empha sis added)) Howeve r, bef ore the repor t of the investig ation is made “the individual shall b e i nformed of the g ener al nature of the

a lle g a tio ns g ivi ngri se to t he inv e sti g a tio n r e qu e ste d, and the ind ivi du a l sh a ll b e inv ite d to dis c us s,
ex pl a in o r r e fute the a lle g a tio ns .” (J.A . at 16 7) Thus , th e langua g e of the Cr e de nti a ls M anu a l is pe rm iss ive wi th r e sp e c t to no tif ic a tio n o f t

he ini tiatio n o f a

n in ves ti gatio n b ut m and a tor y wi th respe ct to an individual being notified prior to its conclusion. As the district court c orre ctly noted, “[t] here is no require ment that the individual be informed o[f] the investigation until he is invited to interview with investigators.” Tal war v . Ca tho lic He alt

hc ar e Pa rtn e rs , 2006 WL 3526792, at *4 (N.D. O hio 2006). Consequently , there was no dispute of a materia l fac t on this poi nt and summary judgme nt was appr opriately g rante d to Defe ndants. 3. Tem porary Susp ension Pla in t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t D e f

e n d an t s b r e a c h e d t h e i r c o n t r a c t w h e n t w o m e mb e r s of ME C, Def endants Schumm and Imler, tempora rily suspended his surg ical privileg es without following the proce dure se t forth in the Crede ntials Manual. The r eleva nt p rovision of the Crede ntials ManualNo. 07-3156

14 provides that any

Chief of Staff

, Depa rtment Chief or CEO may summarily

suspend the privileg es
o f m ed i ca l s t af

f “ wh en ev er

s u ch ac t i o ni s n ec es s ary t o p re v en t h arm , i m m ed i at e in j u ry o r d am age to the m ental or phy sical saf ety and we ll being of

any patient, employ ee or

other pe rson . . . .” ( J .A. at 168) The Credentials Manual also require s that the s ummary suspension “shall not be for more than fourteen day s,” and that MEC must be noti fied for revie w. ( Id. ) I n addition, the impacted staf f member must be notified of the suspension. Plaintiff contends that he w as “thre aten ed”and involuntarily

cea sed his surg ical privileg es, thus constituting a suspe nsion wi t h o u t t h e proper pr oc e dura l sa fe g ua

rd s. De fe ndant s, ho we ve r, a sse rt that Pla int if

f v olu nta ri ly re lin qu ish e d h is

surg ic a l pr ivi le g e s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a dd re ss P la int if

f’ s a lle g a tio n o f a

n im pr op e r s us pension o f h is surg ical privileg es as a

basis for his bre ach of

contra ct claim. Neve rtheless, beca use the claim was

ra ise d b e fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt , we wi ll ad dr e ss it her e . In th e c a se a t ba r, the re so lut ion

of thi s c la im essentially

comes down t o P l ai n tiff’s wor d ag ainst that of Def endants; howe ver, it is unnece ssary for us to dec ide whethe r this fac tual dispute constitutes a materia l dispute o f fa ct such that it was imp ro pe r f

or the c ourt be low to g ra nt s umm ary

jud g me nt. Ra th er, the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fa ilure to addre ss this claim at summary judgm en t i s harmless inasmuch a s Defe ndants are insulated from liability on this claim under Ohio’s pe er r eview immunity statute, as discussed be low. III . P EER

RE VI EW I M M UN ITY We now consider whether Def endants a re insulated f

rom liability

with respec t to Pl aintiff’s state law claims under Ohio’s peer revie w immunity statute. Plaintiff alleg es that the district cour tNo. 07-3156

15 err ed in finding that Def

endants we re pr otected by peer revie w immunity under Ohio Rev. Code § 23 05 .2 51 . O hio ’s pe e r r e vie w i mmunit y statut e pr ov ide s, in r e le va nt p art , th a t [n]o h e a lth c are e nti ty

sh a ll b e lia

ble in d a ma g e s to any

pe rs on fo r a ny a c ts, omissions , decisions, or other conduct within the scope of the func tions o f a pe er revie w committee of the health ca re en t i t y . No individual who is a member of or works for or on beha lf of a pe er r eview c ommitt ee of a hea lth ca re en t ity

shall be liable i n damag es t o any

person f or any acts, omissions, decisions, or other c onduct within the scope of the functions of the pe er r eview c ommitt ee. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.251(A). U nder O hio law, a “ health ca re e ntity ” includes those e ntities that conduct, a s part of their reg ular business, profe ssional cre dentialing or qualit y revie w involving the competenc e, prof

essional conduc t, or quality of care provided by health care providers. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.25(A) (1). A “pee r revie w committee,” a s used in the statute, includes a committee that “[c]onducts profes s i o n al cr edentialingor quality revie w ac tiviti es involving the competenc e of, profe ssional conduct of, or quality car e provide d by

health ca

re pr oviders.” O hio Rev. Code § 2305.25(E)( 1)(a ). On a pp e a l, P la int if

f d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the fa c t th a t De fe nd ant St. R ita is a c ov e re d “ he a lth

car e entity ” or that the MEC is a “pee r review commit tee.” Nor doe s Plainti ff c ontest the fac t that Def endants Schumm and Imler ar e cove red a s members of the “pee r re view co m m i t t ee.” Rather, Plaintiff asserts that the district cour t erre d in its determination t h at he did not present sufficie nt evidenc e to overc ome t he im munity provided to Def endants under the statute. We find Plaintiff’s argument to be unava iling. To overc ome the pee r re view immunity privileg e, “the party

seeking relief must present cle ar and convinc ing evidenc e that defe ndants acte d with actual malice .” W all v. Ohio Permane nte Me d.No. 07-3156

16 Group, Inc. , 1 19 Oh io A

pp . 3 d 6 54 , 6 66 (O hio Ct. Ap p. 19 97 ); Jacobs v . Frank , 60 Ohio St. 3d 111, 11 6 ( Oh io 1 99 1) . “ Ac tua l ma lic e in t his c on te xt re qu ir e s p ro of that de fe nd ants ma de state me nts in

connec tion with the peer review process wit h knowledg e they wer e false or with re ckless disreg ard for whe ther they

wer e true or fa lse.” W

all , 199 Ohio App. 3d at 666. Plaintiff asserts that De fenda nts acted w ith a ctual malice as a result of statements made by Schumm and I mler duringa conve rsation in which they informed Plaint i ff o f the ong oing inv e sti g a tio n a

nd re qu e ste d th at he vo lun tari ly a bs ta in f ro m e xer c isi nghis surg ic a l pr ivile g e s. Specifica lly , Plaintiff asserts that De fenda nts acted w ith actual malice when they informed him t hat he wo uld be re po rt e d to the Natio na l Pr a c tit ion e r’ s D a ta ba se if he did no t vo lun tari ly

g ive up his privileg es. Plaintiff asser ts that Defe ndants knew that this stateme nt w as false at the time that it was made be cause such re ports can be forwa rded only afte r the imposition of summary suspension pr oc e e din g s. Ho we ve r, the me re fa c t th a t D e fe nd ants ’ s tate me nt w a s in a c c ur ate is in su ffi c ie nt t o
serve as proof

that Def endants we re a

war e of the falsity

of the stateme nt at t h e ti me it was made

. I ndeed, “ mere inacc urac ies in statements and a lleg ed improper motivations by

speakers ar e insuffici ent t o show ac tual malice.” W all , 1 99 Oh io A

pp . 3 d at 66 6. B e c a

us e Pla int if

f f a ile d to produce evidenc e re g ardingDef endan t s ’ k n o wl edg e or r eckle ss disreg ard of the fa lsity

of the inacc urate statement, summary judgme nt was prope rly

g rante d to Defe ndants. IV. DENIAL OF P LAINTIFF ’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY I n Plaintiff’s last assig nment of err or, he a sserts that the district cour t abused its discretion by summarily

denying his motion to c ompel discovery reg arding the minutes of the MEC meeting wher e a vote to authorize an investig ative committee took p l ac e. “[I ]t is well established that theNo. 07-3156

17 scope of discovery

is within t he sound discre tion of the trial cour t.” Ha y es v . E qu ita bleEn e rg

yRe s. Co. , 2 6 6 F. 3 d 5 6 0 , 5 7 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Chr y sle r Co rp . v . F

e dd e rs C or p ., 643 F.2d 1229, 12 40 (6 th C ir .1 98 1) ). Con se qu e ntl y , w e re vie w r uli ng s c on c e rn ingthe sc op e of dis c ov e ry

fo r a bu se of discre tion. United States v. Dairy Farm ers of America, I nc ., 426 F.3d 850, 862 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff alleg es that the district c ourt abused its discr etion by failing to conduct an in c amer a ins pe c tio n o f t

he min ute s to de te rm ine wh ic h, if any , of the mate ri a l w a s d isc ov e ra ble . D e fe nd ants argue that the di strict court properly declined to conduct an in camer a inspec tion of the MEC minutes at issue bec ause suc h rec ords are not discovera ble under Ohio law. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.252 (“ Pr oc e e din g s and

re c or ds wi thi n th e sc op e of a pe e r r e vie w c omm itt e e of a he a lthc are e nti ty

sh a ll be he ld i n c on fi de nc e and sh a ll no t be su

bje c t to dis c ov e ry or int

ro du c tio n in e vid e nc e in a ny c ivi l action ag ainst a hea lth care entity or hea lth care provider . . . .” ). Even a ssuming that the district court improper ly

denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel discover y , s u ch an e rror

would not require

reve rsal by

this Court as we find the err or, if any , to be harmless. I n the case at bar, Plaintiff has not de mon str a te d h ow he wa s ult imate ly pr e jud ic e d by the de nia l of dis c ov e ry or wh e the r t he a va ila bil ity of the committee’s rec ords would have established a disputed material fa ct. See W olotsky v. H

uhn , 960 F.2d 1331, 1338 ( 6th Cir. 1992) (upholding de nial of discover y as nonpre judicial wher e re cords to be soug ht did not address any materia l element of the plaintiff’s cla im). Withre sp e c t to Pla int if

f’ s § 19 81 ra c ia l dis c ri min a tio n c la im, re c or ds re g ard ingME C’ s v ote to authorize an investigat i v e co m m i t tee would not have assisted in establishing a n element of

the prima fa cie c ase. The minutes would not have shed lig ht on any co n t ra ctual right that existed betwee n the par

ties nor would it have disclosed whether phy sicians outside of Plaintiff’s protec tedNo. 07-3156

18 class we re subjec t to a differ ent procedure under the Bylaws. With respect to Plaintiff’s bre ach of contra ct claim, as discusse d above, e ven assuming that Plaintiff could prove that the committee conducte d two investigations, it would not ha ve established that a brea ch of contra ct o ccur red. Be cause the minutes rec ording MEC’s vote to authorize an investig ative committee would not have assisted P l aint iff in establishing a disputed mater ial fac t with respec t to either his claim of ra cial dis c ri min a tio n o r b reac h o f c on tr a c t, a ny e rr or ma de by the dis tr ic t c ourt

in d e nyinghis mot ion

to

c omp e l di sc ov e ry wa s har mle ss. We n e e d n ot, the re fo re , d ist ur b th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. CO NC LU SION For the re asons stated a

bove, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.