Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/755/455/51764/
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 19:30:25
Document Index: 76729492

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1988', 'art, 461', '§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1988']

Dr. Emsley A. Davis, Plaintiff-appellee Cross-appellant, v. West Community Hospital, Dr. Robert W. Shirey, and Dr.william G. Manax, Defendants-appellants Cross-appellees,andharvey Kelly, B.j. Neely and Sue Pescaia, Defendants Cross-appellees, 755 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1985) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1985 › Dr. Emsley A. Davis, Plaintiff-appellee Cross-appellant, v. West Community Hospital, Dr. Robert W. S...
Dr. Emsley A. Davis, Plaintiff-appellee Cross-appellant, v. West Community Hospital, Dr. Robert W. Shirey, and Dr.william G. Manax, Defendants-appellants Cross-appellees,andharvey Kelly, B.j. Neely and Sue Pescaia, Defendants Cross-appellees, 755 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1985)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 755 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1985) March 21, 1985
This is an appeal and cross-appeal on an action initiated by Dr. Emsley A. Davis against West Community Hospital, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the hospital (Harvey Kelly), the Administrator of the hospital (B.J. Neely), the Chief of Staff (Dr. Robert W. Shirey), the Chief of Surgery (Dr. William G. Manax) and other persons not involved in this appeal after the permanent suspension of Dr. Davis' staff privileges at the hospital. The action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged a deprivation of Dr. Davis' constitutional rights; the complaint also asserted pendent state law claims for libel and tortious interference with business relationships of Dr. Davis. On this appeal the defendants contest the district court's judgment for Dr. Davis following a jury trial on claims for violation of his first amendment rights and procedural due process rights and for libel. Dr. Davis contests the judgment for the defendants on his claim for tortious interference with business relationships and for the violation of his equal protection rights. Further issues on appeal are the appropriateness of joint and several liability of the defendants, the immunity of the hospital, and the proper amount of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
As to the apportionment of damages among the defendants, we conclude that the district court erred in finding Drs. Manax and Shirey and the hospital jointly and severally liable. We reverse the award of punitive damages against the hospital as a municipal entity under the rule expressed in City of Newport v. Facts Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S. Ct. 2748, 2762, 69 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981). On the procedural due process claim, we remand for the entry of judgment against the hospital for actual damages in the amount of $10,000. On the equal protection claim, we remand for the entry of judgment jointly and severally against Drs. Manax and Shirey and chairman Kelly and administrator Neely for nominal damages in the amount of $1.
Finally, we vacate the award of attorneys' fees and remand for a reconsideration by the district court of the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to Dr. Davis under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the rule of Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983), concerning partially prevailing plaintiffs.
The district court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict as follows: it disallowed the claim for tortious interference with business relationships finding no evidence of the element of malice and no evidence of actual damage (since Dr. Davis' income increased in the year of his summary suspension); and it set aside the award of punitive damages for the violation of substantive due process, reasoning that without actual damages, evidence of either aggravating circumstances or malicious intent was necessary but not present. The court also entered judgment for $60,000 in damages against the defendants Drs. Manax and Shirey and West Community Hospital jointly and severally. The award comprised $10,000 actual and $10,000 punitive damages each for the violations of first amendment rights, procedural due process rights, and libel. The district court also awarded attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in the amount submitted for actual time and expenses. Finally, the court ordered reinstatement of Dr. Davis' staff privileges.
The jury determined that the initial summary suspension of Dr. Davis by Drs. Manax and Shirey was a retaliatory action in violation of his first amendment rights. We conclude, however, that as a matter of law Dr. Davis' speech was not protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, we do not reach the issue raised by the defendants that the district court erred in failing to submit a special interrogatory on the question of whether Dr. Davis would have been suspended regardless of the letters that he wrote. See Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S. Ct. 568, 576, 50 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1977); Truly v. Madison General Hospital, 673 F.2d 763, 767 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 909, 103 S. Ct. 214, 74 L. Ed. 2d 170 (1982).
Although these letters were not made public (in fact, the June 15 letter was marked "personel [sic] and confidential)", some internal communications have been deemed to constitute protected speech. The Supreme Court has found an employee's (teacher's) criticisms of racially discriminatory policies and practices of the employer made only to her supervisor (principal) to be protected speech. Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410, 414, 415 n. 4, 99 S. Ct. 693, 695, 696 n. 4, 58 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1979). The fact, then, that the communications here were inhouse does not necessarily destroy their protection under the First Amendment, but it is part of the context of the communication to be considered in determining whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern. See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 1690, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708, 720 (1983) (" [w]hether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record"). Although Dr. Davis has raised the issue of racial discrimination in his equal protection claim against the hospital, none of his letters made any charges of racially discriminatory policies and practices or otherwise raised matters of public concern as discussed infra.
The First Amendment protects the speech of government employees when that speech addresses a matter of public concern. A matter of public concern may be a matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. Connick, 103 S. Ct. at 1689, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 719. Concerning the protection to be afforded to matters of public concern raised by government employees, the Supreme Court in Connick noted that when the employee speaks as a citizen upon such matters, the First Amendment has long been interpreted to protect that speech from being " 'chilled' by the fear of discharge." 103 S. Ct. at 1687, 1688, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 717, 718. Such protected speech is contrasted with that of a government employee speaking "as an employee upon matters only of personal interest." Id., 103 S. Ct. at 1690, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 720 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has formulated the Connick inquiry concerning protected speech as follows:
McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 1983). The court added:
Id. (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102, 60 S. Ct. 736, 744, 84 L. Ed. 1093 (1946)).
Therefore, as to the first amendment claim, we find as a matter of law that Dr. Davis' speech concerned individual personnel disputes and did not address matters of public concern; and that, therefore, it is not protected speech under the First Amendment. See Connick, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 1690 & n. 7, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708, 720 & n. 7; McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1114.
Although the jury found that four of the defendants violated Dr. Davis' equal protection rights, i.e., were primarily motivated in one or more of their actions by racial considerations, no damages were awarded on this claim. Dr. Davis argues only that the trial court erred in failing to award nominal damages, given that the jury found that his equal protection rights were violated. The Supreme Court case cited by Dr. Davis held that in the absence of proof of actual injury from a violation of a constitutional right (procedural due process), a plaintiff is entitled to recover only nominal damages (and not punitive damages). See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 248, 98 S. Ct. 1042, 1044, 55 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1978). Thus, Dr. Davis is entitled to an award of $1 as nominal damages. Instructions for the award of these damages are set out in part IV infra.
The hospital argues on appeal that no violation of procedural due process occurred especially in view of the great deference due a hospital's decision concerning staff privileges. The hospital cites authority that only minimal due process standards must be met: (1) the procedures of the hospital must be fair; (2) the standards set by the hospital must be reasonable; and (3) the hospital must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. See, e.g., Laje v. Thomason General Hospital, 564 F.2d 1159, 1162 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 905, 98 S. Ct. 3091, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1134 (1978). The court's instructions to the jury concerning the requirements of due process pertinent to Dr. Davis' claim are set forth below.
Since there is a factual dispute3 as to sufficiency of the hearing procedures as applied to Dr. Davis, the due process issue was properly presented to the jury. See, e.g., Conley v. Board of Trustees of Grenada County Hospital, 707 F.2d 175, 182 (5th Cir. 1983). As is evident from the comparison of the hospital's version of its actions and the contrary and additional evidence pointed out by Dr. Davis, see supra note 3, Dr. Davis presented sufficient evidence of procedural irregularities at trial such that the hospital's attack on the jury's finding of a violation of procedural due process must fail. In particular, while he was allowed to present evidence during the suspension hearings conducted by the hospital, that evidence was not considered by the actual decision-making body. Dr. Davis points to the fact that the Board in overruling the Executive Committee's recommendation of a reprimand instead of suspension listened only to part of the evidence and none from him; and that the Joint Conference Committee in reaching its final decision (a split vote of four to two which resulted in suspension by the Board) did not even have before it the very lengthy record from the special hearing at which 22 hours of testimony were presented and did not discuss any specific evidence.
Dr. Davis challenges the jury's finding on the truthful character of the statements. Specifically, he argues that the jury's "yes" answer to the interrogatory "Do you find that any libelous statement made about the plaintiff was true or substantially true?" is a finding that only one statement was true, and that to present a defense or even a conflict with its other answers, the jury would have had to have found that all the statements were true. The defendants contend that Dr. Davis' interpretation of the interrogatory is contrary to the court's instructions to the jury, in which "any" refers to all the libelous statements that may have been made. It is the duty of the court to attempt to reconcile apparently inconsistent answers by a jury to special interrogatories. See Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 119, 83 S. Ct. 659, 666, 9 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1963); Wright v. Kroeger Corp., 422 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir. 1970). Such reconciliation must be done "in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the instructions of the court." Wright, 422 F.2d at 178. Accordingly, we will consider the jury's response to the interrogatory on the truth of the statements in the light of court's instruction on that issue.
Dr. Davis contends that he did prove the element of malice as construed by this Court in Verkin v. Melroy, 699 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1983). In Verkin, this Court specified that the tortfeasors must have had knowledge of the prospective business relationship that they allegedly interfered with and that the evidence, which may be circumstantial evidence, must support an intent to harm the plaintiff. Id. at 733. The jury here could properly conclude that the defendants knew that Dr. Davis' business relationships with any patients he had at the hospital would be affected by the suspension of his staff privileges there. However, there is no evidence in the record, even of a circumstantial nature, to support an intent to harm Dr. Davis.
The hospital system is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. City of Newport v. Facts Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S. Ct. 2748, 2762, 69 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981). Accordingly, the judgment should be modified to exclude the hospital from the punitive damages awarded under the remaining claim against it--the violation of procedural due process.
The hospital urges that the principle established in Hensley v. Eckerhart by the United States Supreme Court precludes full recovery. See id., 461 U.S. 424, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983). Hensley concerns civil rights actions in which attorneys' fees are sought under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and therefore applies to the present case. The Court observed that " [i]if ... a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount." 103 S. Ct. at 1945, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 52. If the plaintiff is only partially successful, the court "may attempt to identify specific hours that should be eliminated, or it may simply reduce the award to account for the limited success." Id. There is no question but that Dr. Davis was only partially successful in the district court. The district court, however, in its discretion, chose not to enhance the award as would be appropriate if "exceptional success" had been achieved and it disallowed the high hourly rate sought for trial work. Overall, rather than reducing the award for excessive time in preparation and less than total success, the court did not enhance the award. The court has discretion in determining how to ensure that an award is not excessive. It may have considered the hourly rate to be low or the case to have been particularly unpopular. See Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). Since the district court considered the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the award, it satisfied the Hensley requirement in determining the appropriate attorneys' fees.
However, in view of the lesser success of Dr. Davis after this appeal, we remand for a reconsideration of the amount of attorneys' fees, if any, to be awarded. See Thomas v. Sams, 734 F.2d 185, 193-94 (5th Cir. 1984). For any attorneys' fees to be awarded, the district court must find that Dr. Davis was a "prevailing party." Hensley, 103 S. Ct. at 1943, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 50. If on remand, he is found to be a prevailing party, the court must reconsider the amount of the award in view of the extent of success achieved.
Dr. Davis had requested a separate interrogatory on the violation of procedural due process by the summary suspension. The denial of this request is not before us on appeal. However, we note that a temporary suspension of staff privileges for a few days might not implicate a liberty or property interest, thereby not raising a due process claim. See Daly v. Sprague, 675 F.2d 716, 721 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S. Ct. 1448, 75 L. Ed. 2d 802 (1983)