KARIM v. RAJU (2018)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about November 7, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim for injunctive relief pursuant to Public Health Law § 2801–c, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.  Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 22, 2017, to the extent it denied defendants' motion to renew their motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Defendants established prima facie that the decision to deny plaintiff physician professional privileges at Lincoln Hospital was made in good faith and on reasonable grounds (see Fried v. Straussman, 41 N.Y.2d 376, 377–378, 393 N.Y.S.2d 334, 361 N.E.2d 984 [1977];  Public Health Law § 2801–b).  The decision was based on admissible evidence of plaintiff's poor interpersonal skills and difficulties in working with subordinates, which are reasonably related to the statutory standards of “patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character or competency of the applicant” (PHL § 2801–b[1] ) and to the core competencies of patient care, interpersonal and communication skills and professionalism set forth in the hospital's bylaws (see Indemini v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 309 A.D.2d 651, 765 N.Y.S.2d 849 [1st Dept. 2003], affd 4 N.Y.3d 63, 790 N.Y.S.2d 625, 823 N.E.2d 1271 [2005];  Heimlich v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. Center, 202 A.D.2d 361, 610 N.Y.S.2d 3 [1st Dept. 1994], lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1017, 622 N.Y.S.2d 911, 647 N.E.2d 117 [1995] ).

We note that, while any finding of the Public Health and Health Planning Council (PHHPC) (formerly the Public Health Council) after review of a decision to deny privileges, or other alleged improper practice, is prima facie evidence in any action of the fact found (Public Health Law § 2801–c;  Fried v. Straussman, 41 N.Y.2d at 381, 393 N.Y.S.2d 334, 361 N.E.2d 984), the PHHPC made no factual findings in this case.

Defendants' good faith was shown by their taking steps to obtain clarification more than once from those who had submitted negative evaluations of plaintiff's performance, and, upon subsequent review, considering plaintiff's numerous positive evaluations, which he had solicited directly (see Matter of Moss v. Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 61 A.D.2d 545, 549, 403 N.Y.S.2d 568 [3d Dept. 1978];  Jackaway v. Northern Dutchess Hosp., 139 A.D.2d 496, 497, 526 N.Y.S.2d 599 [2d Dept. 1988];  Matter of Fischer v. Nyack Hosp., 140 A.D.3d 1264, 1266–1267 [3d Dept. 2016];  Bhard–Waj v. United Health Servs., Hosps., 303 A.D.2d 824, 825, 755 N.Y.S.2d 766 [3d Dept. 2003] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.