 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GUPTA v. NEW BRITAIN GENERAL HOSPITAL12/31/1996
The principal issue in this case is the proper characterization of a residency agreement pursuant to which a surgical resident was dismissed during the final year of his residency training program. The plaintiff physician, Shailesh Gupta, alleging that he had entered into an employment contract with the defendant, New Britain General Hospital (hospital), brought an action challenging the propriety of his dismissal from the hospital's residency training program. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the hospital. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. We transferred
the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and now affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Because this appeal arises from the granting of summary judgment in favor of the hospital, our review proceeds from a view of the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., 193 Conn. 313, 317, 477 A.2d 1005 (1984). In July, 1985, the hospital appointed the plaintiff to serve as a resident physician in the second year of its five year general surgical residency program. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the hospital entered into a Resident Physician Agreement (residency agreement), which
described the objectives of the residency program and specified the mutual obligations of the plaintiff and the hospital. The residency agreement remained in effect
for a term of one year only, subject to possible renewal in one year increments upon favorable evaluation of the plaintiff by faculty members in the hospital's department of surgery.
Shortly after the renewal of the plaintiff's residency agreement for a second year, supervising faculty at the hospital and elsewhere began to express concerns whether the plaintiff would be able to complete his residency citing deficiencies in his clinical skills and in his ability to interact with staff members. These doubts led to the hospital's decision to place the plaintiff on probation at the time of the renewal of his residency agreement for a third year beginning in July, 1987.
In February, 1988, during the plaintiff's third year at the hospital and while he was still on probation, the hospital's resident evaluation committee (residency committee) preliminarily determined that there had been insufficient improvement in the plaintiff's clinical performance to justify renewal of his residency
agreement for a fourth year. The plaintiff was so warned. The committee decided, however, to defer actual termination of the plaintiff's residency for another ninety days, beginning in March, 1988.
Despite continued doubts as to the plaintiff's performance during this ninety day period, the residency committee nonetheless decided, in July, 1988, by one vote, to renew the plaintiff's residency agreement for a fourth and final year. The committee imposed four specific conditions on the plaintiff's renewal as a resident: (1) the plaintiff had to spend the entire year at the hospital, rather than rotating out to other facilities; (2) the plaintiff could supervise a junior resident in the operating room only if an attending surgeon was also present; (3) the plaintiff was required to obtain professional counseling; and (4) the general surgical section would evaluate the plaintiff's performance on a quarterly, rather than an annual, basis.
At the plaintiff's first quarterly evaluation in September, 1988, the general surgical section unanimously determined that the plaintiff did "not show any potential for being a safe and independent surgeon" a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|