Court Opinion

ID: 9441264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 17:31:55.22145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:14.166475
License: Public Domain

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm the judgment for the reasons given by the district court. As it noted:
Given Gitter’s knowledge that he had made material misrepresentations or omissions in his Credentialing Application that the Defendants had not yet reviewed, where such misrepresentations or omissions would give the Defendants cause to terminate negotiations and/or any agreement, any reliance by Gitter on the representations of the Defendants was unreasonable. Gitter knew he had submitted an improper Credentialing Application, and he cannot claim reasonable reliance.
J.A. 355.
I agree with this observation. As the majority notes, the question asked of Git-ter on the Credentialing Application was whether any hospital had suspended him or had placed him on probation. See Majority Opinion at 367. Gitter answered “no,” despite the fact that he had actually been suspended “by St. Vincent’s Medical Center East in Alabama after failing to find coverage for an on-call shift he missed while traveling to Virginia to interview with RMH.” Id. After the suspension was rescinded, the hospital placed Gitter on probation. Id.
This answer would have concerned defendants for two separate and independent reasons. The first is that any hospital must be able to depend upon the availability of a cardiac surgeon should someone in the community suffer a heart attack or experience some other cardiac event. The second reason is that physicians who possess staff privileges at hospitals or work together in smaller practice groups must enjoy a sense of mutual respect and trust. Gitter’s erroneous response drew both his medical professionalism and veracity into *372some question, at least to such a degree that his reliance upon defendants’ representations was not reasonable. For all I know, Dr. Gitter may be a fine surgeon, but it was not reasonable for him to expect, in light of his response, that defendants would take a leap of faith that things would run smoothly between the parties in their new and mutually dependent relationship.
With thanks to my colleagues for the thoughtful expression of their differing views, I respectfully dissent.