Lesley v. Hee Man Chie
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 10526, 2001 WL 530481, 250 F.3d 47 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Rehabilitation Act, a physician's decision to refer a disabled patient to another facility does not constitute discrimination "solely by reason of disability" if the decision is a reasoned medical judgment that is not devoid of any reasonable medical support, even if it deviates from prevailing medical opinion, and is not a pretext for discriminatory motive or based on stereotypes.
Facts:
- Vickie Lesley became pregnant in late 1994 and began prenatal care with Dr. Hee Man Chie, her obstetrician-gynecologist.
- Dr. Chie diagnosed Lesley as HIV-positive and, having no prior experience delivering babies for HIV-positive women, researched proper treatment protocols, including AZT administration.
- Despite Dr. Chie's inquiries, Leominster Hospital, Lesley's community hospital, did not have AZT available nor a protocol for its intravenous administration by March 30, 1995.
- On March 30, 1995, Dr. Chie decided to transfer Lesley's care to Worcester Memorial Hospital's specialized HIV Program, citing his lack of experience and Leominster's unpreparedness.
- Lesley expressed a desire to remain under Dr. Chie's care and deliver at Leominster, but Dr. Chie refused to continue her treatment.
- Lesley subsequently received satisfactory prenatal care and delivered her baby, who tested negative for HIV, at Worcester Memorial Hospital, located about 45 minutes from her home.
Procedural Posture:
- Vickie Lesley filed a complaint against Dr. Chie in the Massachusetts Superior Court on March 19, 1997, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and Massachusetts Public Accommodation Statute.
- Dr. Chie removed the action to federal court on April 21, 1997.
- The parties stipulated to the dismissal of Lesley’s ADA claim on June 25, 1997.
- Both Lesley and Dr. Chie filed cross-motions for summary judgment, supported by expert testimony.
- On January 7, 2000, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Chie, finding that his decision did not constitute discrimination.
- Lesley appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a physician's decision to refer an HIV-positive pregnant patient to another facility constitute discrimination "solely by reason of her disability" under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if that decision is based on the physician's medical judgment and is not entirely without any reasonable medical basis?
Opinions:
Majority - lynch
No, a physician's decision to refer an HIV-positive pregnant patient to another facility does not constitute discrimination "solely by reason of her disability" under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act where the decision is a reasoned medical judgment with reasonable medical support. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Dr. Chie, establishing that courts should defer to a doctor’s judgment regarding patient treatment unless the plaintiff shows the judgment lacked any reasonable medical basis. The Rehabilitation Act does not prevent physicians from referring disabled patients for specialized complications the physician lacks experience or knowledge to address. While courts must guard against medical judgments masking discrimination, they should not impose a special, disability-centric duty of care or act as a "super-employment committee" on medical decisions. The plaintiff must show the decision was devoid of reasonable medical support, and this unreasonableness must be tied to a larger theory of discrimination (e.g., pretext, animus, fear, or stereotyping). Lesley failed to demonstrate pretext, as Dr. Chie had treated other HIV-positive patients, and his decision involved an individualized inquiry confirmed by other healthcare professionals. The court found Dr. Chie's reasoning—his unfamiliarity with recent AZT protocols, Leominster Hospital's lack of preparedness for intravenous AZT administration by March 30, 1995, and the availability of specialized care at nearby Worcester Memorial—to be medically reasonable. The court distinguished this case from Bragdon v. Abbott, emphasizing that deference to a physician's reasoned judgment is appropriate when the patient's own health is at issue, as opposed to a direct threat to others.
Concurring - lipez
Yes, Dr. Chie’s decision to transfer Lesley was medically reasonable based on the evidence, and therefore summary judgment was appropriate, but the court did not need to establish a broad rule requiring plaintiffs to show medical unreasonableness as part of a "larger theory of disability discrimination." Judge Lipez concurred with the result because Dr. Chie's evidence, such as Leominster Hospital's lack of an AZT protocol at the time of transfer, clearly demonstrated medical reasonableness, negating any claim of pretext. However, he cautioned against prematurely establishing a rule that a plaintiff must always show a doctor's decision was unreasonable "in a way that reveals it to be discriminatory." He noted that Section 504's language could potentially cover situations where a doctor's decision to transfer is based on an unreasonable medical judgment, irrespective of discriminatory motive. While sharing concerns about federalizing malpractice law, he cited Bragdon v. Abbott for the principle that while public health authorities' views have "special weight," a professional can rebut them with a "credible scientific basis" for deviation, which Dr. Chie's experts provided. He distinguished this case from typical "bad medicine" malpractice and viewed it as a denial of services, but stressed that the specific facts here (Dr. Chie's reasonable medical support) were sufficient to decide the case without a broader ruling on the interplay between medical unreasonableness and discriminatory intent.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for evaluating discrimination claims against healthcare providers under the Rehabilitation Act when a medical judgment is involved. It creates a high bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to demonstrate not just medical unreasonableness but that such unreasonableness stems from a discriminatory motive or stereotype, rather than merely a disagreement over the best course of treatment. The decision protects physician autonomy and prevents the federalization of medical malpractice claims, ensuring that the Rehabilitation Act is not used to second-guess bona fide, albeit perhaps cautious or non-prevailing, medical judgments regarding a patient's own health. This approach balances the need to combat discrimination against disabled individuals with the imperative not to unduly interfere with complex medical decisions and state regulation of healthcare.
