Dr. Jeffrey P. Rhoads sued his former employer, Stormont Vail Healthcare, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging unlawful failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act (RA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted Stormont’s motion for summary judgment, and Dr. Rhoads appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Dr. Rhoads, an internal medicine specialist, was employed as a hospitalist at Stormont under a contract signed in 2019. In 2020, concerns were raised about Dr. Rhoads exhibiting signs of dementia and a decline in the quality of his work. An internal committee at Stormont recommended a temporary restriction of Dr. Rhoads’s clinical privileges and referred him for evaluation. Dr. Rhoads was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive disorder and was not considered fit to return to the practice of medicine at that time. Through their attorneys, Dr. Rhoads and Stormont engaged in an interactive process to determine whether, and under what conditions, Dr. Rhoads could return to work. Dr. Rhoads requested a position as an outpatient physician with supervision from an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) or a Physician’s Assistant (PA) as an accommodation, or reassignment to an administrative position. Stormont terminated Dr. Rhoads’s employment in September 2021, and he subsequently filed suit.
Legal Analysis
Failure to Accommodate: The court reviewed Dr. Rhoads’s failure-to-accommodate claims under the ADA, as the substantive standards for ADA and RA claims are the same. The court agreed with the district court that Dr. Rhoads’s proposed accommodation of reassignment to an outpatient physician role with a proctor was not reasonable due to the high cost and the fact that Stormont’s proctoring system was not designed for indefinite supervision. The court also found that Dr. Rhoads admitted he could pose a direct threat to patient safety if he made a mistake, and his arguments to the contrary relied on the availability of the unreasonable proctoring accommodation.
Reassignment to an Administrative Position: The court concluded that Dr. Rhoads could not establish Stormont’s liability for failure to offer him reassignment to an administrative position, as he declined the possibility of reassignment twice during negotiations. The court found no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Rhoads engaged in the interactive process on this proposed accommodation in good faith.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, granting summary judgment for Stormont Vail Healthcare, Inc. on Dr. Rhoads’s failure-to-accommodate claims under the ADA and RA.
Schrag on Law 