Opinion ID: 793140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits: DOH Officials

Text: 31 Beechwood produced sufficient evidence of retaliatory motive to survive summary judgment. Suspect chronology—the close sequence of protest and scrutiny—constitutes circumstantial evidence, along with evidence that the 1999 Offensive was pre-planned. But much of this circumstantial evidence is likewise consistent with a zealous adversarial posture arising from the regulatory mission. See Blue v. Koren, 72 F.3d 1075, 1084 (2d Cir.1995) (granting summary judgment where plaintiff produced no direct evidence of retaliatory motive). Among the other evidence cited by the partnership is the e-mail reaction of two DOH administrators to the news that the federal government would revoke Beechwood's Medicare/Medicaid provider agreement; they rejoiced with exclamations of AMEN & HALLELUJAH and HOT DIGGITY DAWG (followed by 50 exclamation marks). A sense of triumph and satisfaction could, however, be as consistent with a job well done as with an improper motive. 32 There is direct evidence, however, that the State's hostile pursuit of the partnership was motivated by an intent to punish the partnership for exercising First Amendment rights of speech and petition rather than by—or distinctly in addition to—the antagonism that arises between a regulator and the regulated (a relationship easily inflamed by difficult personalities). One third-party affidavit related a statement by a DOH surveyor admitting that the partnership's troubles with DOH were caused by Brook Chambery's previous lawsuits against DOH and Sanford Rubin (DOH's Regional Director), and that DOH and Rubin were going to get Chambery for it. Another affidavit recounted an exchange at a conference in which a DOH deputy director lamented that the closing of Beechwood was a horrible situation that I hope to never go through again. We had to close that facility for all the wrong reasons. A gloating e-mail from defendant Rubin to DOH personnel is fairly explicit: [a]nother advantage on our side is that HCFA claims it will back us all the way . . . they too have been harassed by Chambery. The chickens are coming home to roost. 33 This is evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the DOH was campaigning against the partnership as retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights. We therefore vacate and remand as to the First Amendment claim. 3 34