Texas court awards fired doctor nearly $10 million

The Dallas physician's former employer plans to appeal the ruling that its actions defamed him.

By — Posted May 14, 2007

Print  |   Email  |   Respond  |   Reprints  |   Like Facebook  |   Share Twitter  |   Tweet Linkedin

A Dallas court in April awarded a hefty $9.8 million to an anesthesiologist who said he was fired for speaking out against his employer's allegedly fraudulent patient billing practices.

The verdict could get overturned on appeal. But Neal Fisher, MD, the doctor at the center of the defamation and breach-of-contract case, hopes the jury's decision sends a message that doctors have the right to advocate for patients without fear of retaliation.

"Physician groups should be more careful in the future about just simply discharging somebody who is essentially a whistle-blower for doing the right thing," said Dr. Fisher's attorney, Michael D. Richardson.

Leaders of the medical group practice involved said if the verdict stands, it could impair their ability to police their own through peer review. "We have in place peer review and quality and credentialing processes, and this case revolves around maintaining those standards," said Michael Hicks, MD, president of Pinnacle Anesthesia Consultants. The group denies the allegations of fraudulent billing and unlawful dismissal. No charges have been filed related to the billing fraud.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Fisher alleged that Pinnacle unlawfully dismissed him in 2004 after he voiced concerns that the group practice was billing patients at out-of-network rates, while claiming to be in-network for the major health plans carried by the hospital with which it contracted. A shareholder at Pinnacle, Dr. Fisher alleged that after he spoke up, the company falsely accused him of drug and alcohol abuse, and medical incompetence, to dismiss him without a fair peer review process. He also alleged that the company told other staff and hospital personnel not to use him for cases. He said Pinnacle threatened to fire him unless he underwent a peer review of the charges, agreed to two years of probation and signed an amended contract that included a three-year noncompetition clause if he were let go.

The anesthesiologist refused to accept Pinnacle's terms, and instead, submitted himself to the hospital's impaired physician program. There, Dr. Fisher was drug tested, peer reviewed on his case history "and cleared of everything," Richardson said. But the ordeal harmed Dr. Fisher's reputation and livelihood, he said.

"He wasn't afraid of scrutiny. He didn't want to go through a sham peer review," Richardson said, adding that the purpose of Dr. Fisher's case was to shed some light on Pinnacle's out-of-network billing practices. Before trial, a judge blocked Pinnacle from arguing that Dr. Fisher's failure to agree to the peer review process was a breach of his employment contract.

A unanimous jury vindicated Dr. Fisher, finding that Pinnacle's actions defamed him and violated his employment agreement by firing him without a valid reason. Jurors originally awarded Dr. Fisher $6.3 million. The trial judge within a week added $3.5 in attorney's fees and interest.

Pinnacle CEO Andrea Bohannon said they would appeal the ruling because the court precluded the group from presenting certain facts related to the peer review issue. The practice maintains an independent peer review committee, and "we've never had a physician complain it wasn't a fair process," she said.

Dr. Hicks said Dr. Fisher never brought the billing concerns to the practice's attention, calling it a "smokescreen." He said Pinnacle had reason to terminate Dr. Fisher, but declined to elaborate due to the pending litigation. "This case largely hinges on a practice's ability to manage itself administratively and maintain high quality patient care," Dr. Hicks said.

Back to top


Case at a glance

Neal Fisher, MD, v. Pinnacle Anesthesia Consultants

Venue: 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas
At issue: Whether a medical practice wrongfully fired one of its doctors and in so doing, defamed him and breached its employment agreement with him. A jury said yes, and the court awarded the physician nearly $10 million.
Potential impact: The doctor who was fired says the ruling protects physicians' rights to advocate for patients without fear of retribution. Medical group leaders say it inhibits their ability to maintain quality of care through the peer review process.

Back to top



Read story

Confronting bias against obese patients

Medical educators are starting to raise awareness about how weight-related stigma can impair patient-physician communication and the treatment of obesity. Read story

Read story


American Medical News is ceasing publication after 55 years of serving physicians by keeping them informed of their rapidly changing profession. Read story

Read story

Policing medical practice employees after work

Doctors can try to regulate staff actions outside the office, but they must watch what they try to stamp out and how they do it. Read story

Read story

Diabetes prevention: Set on a course for lifestyle change

The YMCA's evidence-based program is helping prediabetic patients eat right, get active and lose weight. Read story

Read story

Medicaid's muddled preventive care picture

The health system reform law promises no-cost coverage of a lengthy list of screenings and other prevention services, but some beneficiaries still might miss out. Read story

Read story

How to get tax breaks for your medical practice

Federal, state and local governments offer doctors incentives because practices are recognized as economic engines. But physicians must know how and where to find them. Read story

Read story

Advance pay ACOs: A down payment on Medicare's future

Accountable care organizations that pay doctors up-front bring practice improvements, but it's unclear yet if program actuaries will see a return on investment. Read story

Read story

Physician liability: Your team, your legal risk

When health care team members drop the ball, it's often doctors who end up in court. How can physicians improve such care and avoid risks? Read story