Cordova v. Lafayette Gen. Health, Inc.

379 So.3d 870

2023-353 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/24)

J. Cory CORDOVA, M.D.

v.LAFAYETTE GENERAL HEALTH, INC., University Hospitals & Clinics, Lafayette General Medical Center, Inc., and Karen Curry, M.D.

CA 23-353, CA 23-354

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

January 31, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20222976, HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

James H. Gibson, Stacy N. Kennedy, Gibson Law Partners, LLC, 2448 Johnston Street, P.O. Box 52124, Lafayette, LA 70503, (337) 761-6023, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Lafayette General Medical Center, Inc., Lafayette General Health System, Inc., University Hospital & Clinics, Inc.

Jennie Porche Pellegrin, Neuner Pate, One Petroleum Center, 1001 West Pinhook Road, Suite 200, P.O. Drawer 52828, Lafayette, LA 70505-2828, (337) 237-7000, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Karen Curry, M.D.

Christine M. Mire, 2480 Youngsville Hwy, Suite C, Youngsville, LA 70592, (337) 573-7254, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: J. Cory Cordova, M.D.

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Guy E. Bradberry, Judges.

BRADBERRY, Judge.

₁Dr. J. Cory Cordova appeals a trial court judgment granting an exception of res judicata filed by Lafayette General Health System, Inc., University Hospital and Clinics, Inc., and Lafayette General Medical Center, Inc (the Lafayette General Defendants). Dr. Cordova filed two appeals relating to this matter. The second appeal involves sanctions awarded to the Lafayette General Defendants at a subsequent hearing and is docketed under number 23-354. At the request of the Lafayette General Defendants, the two cases were consolidated by order of this court on August 17, 2023. The issue in the present case centers around the release of information regarding substandard evaluations to third parties contained in Dr. Cordova’s LSU Medical School residency file.

FACTS

In 2017, Dr. Cordova began an internal medicine residency with LSU’s residency training program at University Hospital & Clinics, Inc. At the time, Dr. Karen Curry was the program director of the LSU residency program. Dr. Cordova claims that he was placed on unwarranted probation and subject to a request for adverse action, in addition to information being placed in his file which was misleading, false, and inappropriate. He was non-renewed for the residency program.

Cordova I

₂In 2019, Dr. Cordova filed suit against the Lafayette General Defendants in addition to Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College Board of Supervisors, Dr. Curry, LSU department head Dr. Nicholas Sells, and director of graduate medical education, Ms. Kristi Anderson (the LSU Defendants). The suit also included claims of legal malpractice against Christopher Johnston and the Gachassin Law Firm. Concerning the Lafayette General Defendants and the LSU Defendants, Dr. Cordova alleged due process violations under the federal and state constitutions, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, breach of his residency contract, and the sabotaging of his efforts to apply to other residency programs by sending inappropriate and incomplete documentation regarding his disciplinary status and evaluations to two other programs.

Subsequently, the LSU Defendants moved the entire case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana based on subject matter jurisdiction. On October 24, 2019, the western district court dismissed with prejudice the contract claims against Dr. Anderson and dismissed without prejudice the contract claims against Dr. Curry and Dr. Sells, reserving Dr. Cordova’s right to reinstate these two claims if he could allege either doctor exceeded their authority.

The LSU Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. The western district court issued a judgment dismissing with prejudice the claims ₃relating to denial of procedural due process. The judgment dismissed with prejudice the claims relating to the denial of substantive due process regarding Dr. Sells and the LSU Board of Supervisors. The civil rights claim for denial of substantive due process based on dissemination of information to other residency programs regarding Dr. Anderson and Dr. Curry was dismissed without prejudice. The civil rights claim for denial of substantive due process against Dr. Curry and the breach of contract claim against the LSU Board of Supervisors survived.

The remaining LSU Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Lafayette General Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment. The western district court granted both motions for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all remaining claims against the LSU Defendants and the Lafayette General Defendants. Also, any previous claims as to any Defendant was also dismissed with prejudice.

In its ruling, the federal district court stated:

The fact that other doctors and nurses provided letters of recommendation supporting him [Dr. Cordova] and/or gave him positive reviews on different rotations does not create an issue of fact as to the accuracy or objectivity of any of the assessments involved or Curry’s own professional judgment. Moreover, this evidence shows that Cordova’s non-renewal was the kind of academic/professional decision to which reviewing courts show great deference.

…. Cordova has failed to show anything more than a range of opinions regarding different areas of his competencies among the various medical professionals with whom he worked during his one-year term. None of ₄the evidence introduced, even when drawn in a light most favorable to him, meets the high bar of showing that Curry’s assessment was so arbitrary and lacking in professional judgment as to shock the conscience. Accordingly, he has failed to meet his burden on the qualified immunity defense of establishing a constitutional violation and the substantive due process claim against Curry must be dismissed.

Cordova v. Louisiana State Agric., USDC No. 6:19-CV-1027 (W.D. La. 2020) (unpublished opinion).¹ The western district court went on to hold that all its findings also applied to the Lafayette General Defendants.

Later, in a separate judgment, the western district court remanded the remaining legal malpractice claims against Mr. Johnston and the Gachassin Law Firm to the state district court since all other claims had been resolved. The western district court judgment also entered a final judgment on its previous rulings. Cordova v. Louisiana State Univ. Health Sci. Ctr., 6:19-CV-1027 (W.D. La. 2021) (unpublished opinion).²

Dr. Cordova appealed the judgment dismissing his claims against the LSU Defendants and the Lafayette General Defendants to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Dr. Cordova did not timely appeal that judgment. Cordova v. Louisiana State Univ. Agric., 21-30239 (5th Cir. 2022) (unpublished opinion).³ The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied writs in the case. In Re J. Cory Cordova,₅ — U.S. —, 142 S.Ct. 2733, 212 L.Ed.2d 793 (2022) (unpublished opinion). On May 19, 2022, the judgment was issued as a final mandate by the Fifth Circuit.

Cordova II

Subsequently, on June 8, 2022, Dr. Cordova filed a new petition in state district court seeking a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and damages alleging "repeated bad faith release of [Dr. Cordova’s] confidential [and false information] information contained in his personnel filed maintained by the Lafayette General Defendants[.]" This time, Dr. Cordova named only Dr. Curry and the Lafayette General Defendants as defendants. The LSU Defendants were not named as defendants. Dr. Cordova claimed that since the original filing, Dr. Curry and the Lafayette General Defendants once again sent "misrepresentations and disclosure of unauthorized confidential information" contained in his file to the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure on June 10, 2021. His allegations against the Lafayette General Defendants rest on his assertion that Dr. Curry, the program director of the LSU residency program at the time Dr. Cordova was a resident, is an employee of the Lafayette General Defendants and that because the documents in LSU’s possession are housed in the LSU offices in the Lafayette General Defendant’s hospital, that the Lafayette General Defendants are responsible for the release of the information.

₆In addition to other exceptions, the Lafayette General Defendants filed a peremptory exception of res judicata on July 6, 2022. In response, Dr. Cordova filed a motion in the state district court to stay proceedings pending resolution of a Fed. Rule Civ.P. art. 60(b) motion it filed in the western district court seeking post-judgment relief. Dr. Cordova sought to have the western district court vacate its final judgment and set attorney fees. This motion was filed by Dr. Cordova on July 8, 2022, two days after the Lafayette General Defendants filed the exception of res judicata. On August 22, 2022, the state district court signed a judgment denying the motion to stay proceedings. The state district court also granted the Lafayette General Defendants’ exception of no right of action regarding Dr. Cordova’s request for a preliminary injunction against the release of the information in his file, finding that the western district court ruled that it was LSU and Dr. Curry who were in charge of releasing the information, not the Lafayette General Defendants. At this hearing, the state district court also ruled that Dr. Curry was not properly served. The action for declaratory judgment against the Lafayette General Defendants was not ruled on at this time.

The western district court denied Dr. Cordova’s motion to vacate and awarded the LSU Defendants attorney fees due to "plaintiff’s unreasonable attempts at continuing this litigation." ₇Cordova v. Louisiana State Univ. Agric., 6:19-CV-1027 (W.D. La. 2022) (unpublished opinion).⁴...