• Government
• Profession
• Business
• Opinion
• Health

• Health reform
• H1N1
• P4P
• EMRs
• Medicare
• Liability
• AMA House
• » More

• Book Excerpt
• Business Pitch
• Meetings
• » More

• Contract Language
• Ethics Forum
• In the Courts
• Practice Management
• Technically Speaking
• » More

• Issue dates
• Regions
• Health plans
• Sections
• News briefs
• Columns
• Editorials
• Letters
• Writers
• Other years

• Search tips
• E-mail alert
• Radio
• RSS
• Mobile
• Subscribe
• Institutions
• Staff directory
• Advertising
• Permissions
• Reprints
• News media
• Site guide
• Useful links
• About
• Premium
• Contact

Delaware physician whistle-blower wins free-speech appeal

Judges agree that state administrators acted "recklessly" when they decided not to renew the doctor's contract after he voiced concerns about patient care.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, amednews staff. Feb. 27, 2006.

• PRINT|
• E-MAIL|
• RESPOND|
• REPRINTS|
• SHARE

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in January upheld a $1 million judgment in favor of a Delaware physician who lost his job at a state hospital after he spoke out on patient care and safety issues.

The court found that the Delaware Dept. of Health and Social Services violated the First Amendment rights of David T. Springer, MD, when the agency did not renew his contract at the Delaware Psychiatric Center after he complained of staffing problems and administrative interference with patients' medical treatment.

Doctors and attorneys say the case is a successful template for doctors who, within proper channels, use the First Amendment right to free speech to speak out about patient care problems. They also say that the federal ruling can be referred to as precedent in future whistle-blower cases on this issue.

Some argue that the decision gives weight to growing concerns that hospitals abuse peer review systems to retaliate against doctors who are whistle-blowers or economic competitors. The ruling could have implications for private facilities, they say.

Others, however, argue that Dr. Springer's case does not extend to peer review, and that the ruling has only narrow applications to public hospitals.

Regardless, "the courts have said this is a matter of the utmost public concern when a physician speaks out about the health and safety of patients," said Thomas S. Neuberger, Dr. Springer's attorney.

Court documents show that in a series of memoranda from October 1999 to March 2000, Dr. Springer, a psychiatrist and president of medical staff at the Delaware Psychiatric Center, had complained about patient abuse, overcrowding and personnel shortages. He criticized the administration for hiring unqualified staff members and for discharging patients early.