Opinion ID: 808085
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Patient Contracts

Text: As to interference with patient contracts, Dr. Cohlmia argues that, at the time SJMC suspended his privileges, both he and his patients were forced to leave 8 (...continued) ruling for summary judgment. In this appeal, we review the grant of summary judgment based on whether Dr. Cohlmia has marshaled record evidence to support his claims, not mere allegations of wrongful conduct. -29- the Tulsa market in order to continue treatment. As SJMC points out, the relationship between a doctor and a patient is at-will; there is no contract at issue. See also Vesom v. Atchison Hosp. Ass’n, 279 F. App. 624, 640 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding that to recover, plaintiff must show a “contractual relationship or exclusive arrangement with his patients on which to base his prospective loss”). Dr. Cohlmia acknowledges this point, but argues that as a result of SJMC’s conduct, his interactions with patients were made “more burdensome or expensive.” Aplt. Br. at 46; see also John A. Henry & Co., v. T. G. & Y. Stores Co., 941 F.2d 1068, 1071–72 (10th Cir. 1991). SJMC counters that Dr. Cohlmia presented no evidence to support these allegations, and, at the time of his suspension, Dr. Cohlmia had privileges at three other local hospital systems where he could serve his patients. 9 Aple. Br. at 49. The district court held that Dr. Cohlmia failed to offer proof of his damages and damages are not automatically presumed on the basis of a loss of privileges. Aplt. App. at 701–02. In rebutting this determination, Dr. Cohlmia relies on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Kiepfer v. Beller, 944 F.2d 1213, 1220 (5th Cir. 1991), which held that a physician can establish sufficient evidence for a tortious interference claim by showing that defendant physicians interfered with his ability 9 Dr. Cohlmia disputes this characterization, stating that the area hospitals were “already taking measures to deny [his] privileges,” in a “secret” review process. Aplt. Rep. Br. at 14. But even so, his privileges were still intact at the time of SJMC’s suspension. And in any event, as discussed below, Dr. Cohlmia failed to provide proof of his damages, which is required for recovery. -30- to obtain patient referrals. But in that case, the doctor at trial “sufficiently proved that his damages—the complete loss of his referral practice—was a proximate result of the [tortious interference.]” Id. at 1220. Here, there is no evidence demonstrating a loss of patients or monetary damages. But Dr. Cohlmia argues that the district court improperly denied his request to submit an expert report detailing his damages. The court rejected the report because Dr. Cohlmia failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), by not filing an affidavit indicating that he was unable to present facts essential to justify his opposition to summary judgment. 10 Given that he failed to comply with the Rules, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to reject Dr. Cohlmia’s filing based on his failure to comply with Rule 56(f). 11