United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT GRANTING PRELIMINARY
J. SCHWAB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOW, this 26th day of April, 2018, the Court
hereby GRANTS the Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
doc. no. 38.
granting this Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction the
Court notes the following:
Background / Procedural History
case was incepted in January of 2017 when Plaintiff filed his
Complaint seeking, inter alia, in junctive relief.
Doc. no. 1 The Court issued a Scheduling Order and
set a preliminary injunction hearing date for February 8,
2017 and also ordered that the Parties attend a mediation
session prior to the Preliminary Hearing. Doc. no.
9. In accordance with the Scheduling Order, Plaintiff
filed an affidavit, doc. no. 14, in support of his
request for injunctive relief, and his counsel briefed the
matter. Doc. no. 15. Defendant filed a Brief in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for injunctive relief
(doc. no. 20), with an Affidavit in support of its
opposition (doc. no. 20-1), and filed an Answer to
the Complaint. Doc. no. 21. The Preliminary Hearing
was rescheduled, at Plaintiff's request, for March 7,
2017. Doc. no. 17.
the Parties attended their Court-Ordered mediation session,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Convert the Preliminary Hearing
to a Status Conference (doc. no. 22), which the
Court granted. Doc. no. 23. During the March 7, 2017
status conference, the Parties informed the Court that they
would be proceeding with a peer review administrative
hearing, leading the Court to deny the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, without prejudice, as premature. Doc. nos. 24 and
25. This Court further Ordered the Parties to return for a
second status conference on May 31, 2017. After rescheduling
the second status conference, twice, to allow the Parties to
complete the administrative process, the Parties filed a
Joint Motion Seeking Administrative Closure of the matter to
allow for additional time to complete the administrative
process. Doc. no. 32. This Court granted the
Parties' request. Doc. no. 33.
issuance of a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65, a court must balance: (1) the likelihood
that the moving party will prevail on the merits at final
hearing; (2) the extent to which the moving party will suffer
irreparable injury in the absence of relief; (3) the extent
to which the nonmoving party will suffer irreparable injury
if the preliminary injunction is issued; and (4) the public
interest. See Council of Alternative Political Parties v.
Hooks, 121 F.3d 876, 879 (3d Cir.1997).
Complaint that was initially filed in this case sought to
enjoin the Defendant from holding a peer review hearing
without first providing Plaintiff with certain information.
After attending a Court-Ordered mediation session, the
Parties reached an agreement with respect to the requested
information sought by Plaintiff and a peer review hearing was
held. Given the success of the mediation and the pending peer
review, this Court, as noted above, denied Plaintiff's
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, without prejudice, as
peer review hearing was conducted and outcome was that the
Defendant's peer review panel recommended termination of
Plaintiff's privileges. The Defendant's Board
approved the Appellate Review Committee's recommendation
to terminate Plaintiff's privileges as of April 5, 2018.
April 2, 2018 Plaintiff informed Defendant, through his legal
counsel, that he intended to file a Renewed Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and in order to prevent Defendant from
issuing a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank
(“NPDB”). On April 6, 2018, Defendant provided
written notice to Plaintiff that it intended to make a report
to the NPDB. Doc. no. 43.
filed his Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction on April
9, 2018, seeking to enjoin Defendant from making its report
to the NPDB. Despite Defendant's knowledge that this
document was going to be and/or was filed, Defendant issued a
report to the NPDB. This reporting action led Plaintiff to
file the immediate Renewed Amended Motion for Preliminary
Injunction on April 18, 2018. Doc. no. 38.
to the four factors this Court to consider before issuing a
preliminary injunction, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury to
his reputation and livelihood in the absence of injunctive
relief. By reporting to the NPDB, Defendant has harmed - at a
minimum - his professional reputation and his ability to
practice medicine. In contrast, had Defendant not
reported Plaintiff to the NPDB once it was alerted to the
fact that a Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction would
be filed, the harm to Defendant would have been negligible.
the status quo at the time Plaintiff informed Defendant,
through his legal counsel, that he intended to file a Renewed
Motion for Preliminary Injunction in order to prevent
Defendant from issuing a report to the NPDB (on April 2,
2018), was that no report had been made to the NPDB. Despite
this forewarning, on April 6, ...