Glanz v. Vernick
1991 WL 15130, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1380, 756 F. Supp. 632 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital that receives federal financial assistance through Medicare or Medicaid payments can be held vicariously liable under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for the discriminatory acts of its staff physicians. However, an individual physician who is an employee of a federally-funded program, but not a direct recipient of the funds in that capacity, is not individually liable under the Act.
Facts:
- Raymond Vadnais suffered from severe pain in his right ear due to a perforation.
- In December 1986, Dr. Vernick, a staff physician at Beth Israel Hospital's Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) Clinic, began treating Vadnais.
- In January 1987, Dr. Vernick recommended surgery to repair the ear perforation, and Vadnais agreed.
- After Vadnais consented to the surgery, Dr. Vernick learned that Vadnais was infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).
- In March 1987, Dr. Vernick informed Vadnais that he would not perform the elective ear surgery.
- Vadnais continued to suffer from severe pain in his ear for over a year.
- In August 1988, another surgeon, Dr. Yale Berry, who was unaware of Vadnais's HIV status, successfully performed the surgery, resolving Vadnais's ear problem.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond Vadnais (plaintiff) filed suit against Dr. Vernick and Beth Israel Hospital (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and state law.
- During the litigation, Mr. Vadnais died, and the executor of his estate was substituted as the plaintiff.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the federal claim abated with Mr. Vadnais's death; the court denied the motion in part, allowing the suit to proceed for compensatory damages.
- Defendants then filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims, which are the subject of the present order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, may a hospital that receives Medicare and Medicaid payments be held liable for a staff physician's refusal to perform surgery on an HIV-positive patient, and is the physician individually liable?
Opinions:
Majority - Mazzone, District Judge
Yes, as to the hospital; No, as to the physician. A hospital receiving Medicare and Medicaid payments is a recipient of federal financial assistance under § 504 and can be held vicariously liable for its staff's discriminatory acts, but an individual physician is not liable if they are not a direct recipient of those funds. The court reasoned that legislative history and precedent establish that Medicare and Medicaid constitute federal financial assistance, bringing Beth Israel Hospital within § 504's scope. The court also found that vicarious liability, or respondeat superior, is appropriate under § 504 to incentivize employers to prevent discrimination. However, citing Paralyzed Veterans, the court concluded that Dr. Vernick, in his role at the hospital's clinic, was not a direct recipient of federal funds and thus could not be held individually liable under the Act. Finally, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Vadnais was 'otherwise qualified' for surgery, making summary judgment for the hospital inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act's prohibitions against disability discrimination apply broadly to healthcare providers that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. By affirming that these payments constitute 'federal financial assistance,' the ruling significantly expanded the statute's reach in the healthcare sector. The case establishes that institutions like hospitals can be held vicariously liable for the discriminatory decisions of their staff, creating a powerful incentive for them to implement and enforce non-discrimination policies. However, it also draws a crucial line by shielding individual employees from liability if they do not personally receive the federal funds, focusing accountability on the institutional recipient that agrees to the federal government's non-discrimination conditions.
Unlock the full brief for Glanz v. Vernick