The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has reversed a lower court’s decision in a case involving Dr. Eric Brader and Allegheny Health Network (AHN) and AHN Medical Group (Medical Group). The case centered on claims of retaliation and wrongful discharge after Dr. Brader reported concerns about patient care.
Background of the Case
Dr. Brader, an emergency physician, was employed by the Medical Group and worked at Allegheny General Hospital. In addition to his clinical duties, he held administrative roles, including EMS Medical Director. According to court documents, Dr. Brader alleged that emergency physicians were required to communicate with attending specialists through residents, a practice he believed created risks for patients.
On June 6, 2014, Dr. Brader treated a patient and advised orthopedic surgical residents that the patient needed to be admitted and require surgery. However, the patient was sent home and did not receive surgery for several days, ultimately suffering permanent disability, according to Dr. Brader.
Dr. Brader reported the patient’s case to hospital administration, alleging that the practice of requiring emergency room physicians to communicate with attending physicians through residents was a dangerous practice. He sent an email to the medical director of the emergency department and others, complaining that the patient’s situation was a “classic case of consulting subspeciality residents run amok.”
Dr. Bruce MacLeod, Medical Group’s director and AHN’s president of emergency medicine management at the time, said that Dr. Brader’s email damaged Dr. Brader’s working relationship with hospital administration and impacted the emergency department’s morale. Consequently, Dr. MacLeod initiated the process for Dr. Brader to obtain credentials at AHN’s Canonsburg Hospital for a temporary assignment at that facility. Later, Appellants decided to eliminate Dr. Brader’s stipend he previously was receiving for his role as EMS Medical Director, Director of Emergency Ultrasound, Associate Fellowship Director, and Core Faculty. Dr. Brader then resigned from his position.
Dr. Brader filed a lawsuit in 2017, alleging violations of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE Act) and common law wrongful discharge.
The Court’s Decision: Statute of Limitations
The Superior Court addressed two key issues in the appeal. The first was whether the MCARE Act claim was time-barred. The MCARE Act protects healthcare workers from retaliation for reporting serious events or incidents. It incorporates the “protections and remedies” of the Whistleblower Law. The Whistleblower Law has a 180-day statute of limitations for bringing a civil action.
The court found that the 180-day statute of limitations applied to Dr. Brader’s MCARE Act claim because the MCARE Act incorporates the remedies of the Whistleblower Law. Dr. Brader’s lawsuit was filed more than 180 days after the alleged retaliatory action, meaning his claim was time-barred. The court reversed the lower court’s decision on this issue.
The Court’s Decision: Preemption of Common Law Claim
The second issue was whether the MCARE Act preempted Dr. Brader’s common law wrongful discharge claim. The court noted that, in Pennsylvania, employment is generally “at-will,” meaning an employer can terminate employment for any reason. Exceptions exist where a discharge violates public policy. Dr. Brader argued his discharge violated public policy as set forth in the MCARE Act.
The court, citing the *Clay* case, found that the existence of a statutory remedy under the MCARE Act precluded Dr. Brader’s common law wrongful discharge claim based on the same act. The court reasoned that allowing the common law claim would be inconsistent with the legislative intent of the MCARE Act. The court reversed the lower court’s decision on this issue as well, ruling that the MCARE Act preempted the common law claim.
The Superior Court’s decision means that Dr. Brader’s case is dismissed.