Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Gary M. Ritten, M.D. commenced this case in this Court on January 17, 2007, asserting a claim of retaliation under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, against Defendant Lapeer Regional Medical Center (“LRMC”) and its parent company, Defendant McLaren Health Care Corporation, and also asserting state-law claims of tortious interference, defamation, and breach of contract against Defendant LRMC and subsets of the individual Defendants — a group that includes Barton P. Buxton, the president and chief executive officer of LRMC; Scott Mango, R.N., the chief nursing officer for LRMC; and Darlene F. Daly, D.O., Lisa M. Allen, D.O., and Jan Gromada, D.O., three obstetricians who hold clinical privileges at LRMC. Each of Plaintiffs various claims arises from the suspension of his clinical privileges to treat patients at LRMC, a decision that was initially made by Defendant Buxton in September of 2005, and that was upheld by LRMC’s Board of Trustees in September of 2006 following a lengthy hearing process. This Court’s subject matter jurisdiction rests upon Plaintiffs assertion of a claim arising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1367(a). Through a motion filed on February 27, 2008, Defendants now seek an award of summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiffs federal and state-law claims. First and foremost, Defendants contend that damages may not be awarded to Plaintiff under any of his several theories of liability, in light of the immunity conferred under the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq., for decisions reached in a hospital’s professional review process. In addition, Defendants argue that certain of Plaintiffs claims are legally deficient, and that Plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to provide sufficient evidentiary support for one or more required elements of each of his claims. Defendants’ motion has now been fully briefed by the parties, and the Court heard oral argument on this motion on December 5, 2008. Having thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the accompanying exhibits, and the record as a whole, and having considered the arguments of counsel at the December 5 hearing, the Court now is prepared to rule on Defendants’ motion. This Opinion and Order sets forth the Court’s rulings on this motion. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Parties Plaintiff Gary M. Ritten, M.D. is a board certified obstetrician/gynecologist (Ob/Gyn) who has been licensed to practice medicine in Michigan since 1988. He initially was granted medical staff privileges at the Defendant Lapeer Regional Medical Center (“LRMC”) in 1999, and was reappointed to the medical staff in September of 2001 and again in September of 2003. This lawsuit arises from the summary suspension of Plaintiffs staff privileges in September of 2005, followed by a permanent suspension of these privileges in September of 2006. Defendant LRMC is an acute care hospital located in the city of Lapeer, Michigan, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant McLaren Health Care Corporation. Defendant Barton P. Buxton has been the president and chief executive officer of LRMC since December of 2003. At all relevant times, the chief nursing officer at LRMC was Defendant Scott Mango, R.N. The remaining Defendants — Darlene F. Daly, D.O., Lisa M. Allen, D.O., and Jan Gromada, D.O. — are Ob/Gyns who, like Plaintiff, held staff privileges to treat patients at LRMC, and who allegedly took actions that contributed to the loss of Plaintiffs staff privileges. B. The Events Leading up to the Suspension of Plaintiffs Staff Privileges Clinical staff privileges are granted at LRMC for two-year periods, and are renewed through a process known as “reappointment” or “recredentialing.” This process begins with a review by the Medical Staff Credentials Committee of various materials, including information provided by the Quality Department. The Credentials Committee forwards its recommendation to the Medical Executive Committee, which in turn makes its recommendation to the Board of Trustees, the final authority on the matter. As noted, Plaintiffs staff privileges had been renewed in September of 2001 and September of 2003, so he was due to go through the reappointment process in September of 2005. This process had been revised in the summer of 2005 with the arrival of a new Director of Quality, Jo Weth. Among other changes instituted by Weth and other administrative officials, including Defendant Buxton, it was determined that the Credentials Committee should be given additional historical data for each physician being considered for recredentialing. This additional data consisted of a “grid” that summarized all of the “occurrence” and “incident” reports that had been made about a given physician over the past five years. Upon preparing these grids for Plaintiff and the other physicians (approximately 25 in number) who were scheduled for recredentialing in September of 2005, Weth discovered that Plaintiff was the subject of three times as many reports as any other physician under review. Weth further determined that the 88 reports about Plaintiff comprised 21.6 percent of the reports about all LRMC physicians (numbering approximately 200) over the past five years. In addition, Weth prepared a chart of “patient safety indicators” for each physician who was scheduled for recredentialing, and this chart revealed a trauma rate of 47.46 percent for Plaintiff when he delivered babies using a vacuum extractor, versus a national trauma rate of 21.9 percent and a trauma rate for other LRMC Ob/ Gyns of 22.9 percent. Approximately two weeks before these materials were to be presented to the Credentials Committee at its scheduled September 2, 2005 meeting, Weth, Buxton, and two other individuals — Judy Trotter, the manager of the Medical Staff Office, and Dr. Charles Franckowiak, the Chair of the Credentials Committee — met to ensure that all of the necessary information was ready for presentation at the forthcoming committee meeting. Upon seeing the reports for Plaintiff, Dr. Franckowiak expressed a desire to discuss these reports with Dr. Olan Dombroske, the Chair of the Quality Committee, and a meeting was convened among Dr. Franckowiak, Dr. Dombroske, Buxton, and Weth. Following this meeting, it was determined that an outside obstetrician should review the materials concerning Plaintiff. The physician Buxton chose for this task was Thomas Petroff, D.O., who worked at another hospital affiliated with Defendant McLaren, and who had served along with Buxton on a committee that addressed issues common to all McLaren affiliates. Upon receiving the reports for Plaintiff, Dr. Petroff asked to review the medical records for roughly 90 of Plaintiffs patients. Dr. Petroff explained at his deposition that his review focused principally upon patients who had undergone vaginal deliveries of babies with instruments, including a vacuum extractor and forceps. Through this review, Dr. Petroff concluded that the trauma rate shown on the “patient safety indicators” report for Plaintiff was too high, and reflected errors in coding the procedures used on Plaintiffs patients. Nonetheless, Dr. Petroffs review disclosed a different concern — namely, that Plaintiffs rate of vacuum delivery appeared to be high, and that the medical records provided to Dr. Petroff failed to disclose Plaintiffs justification for this technique, which tended to pose more risk to the mother and baby. Thus, Dr. Petroff reported back to Buxton his concern that it was difficult to determine whether Plaintiff was adhering to a proper standard of care, in light of the lack of justification in the records Dr. Petroff had reviewed for Plaintiffs seemingly high use of vacuum deliveries. (-See Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 8, Petroff Dep. at 140.) On Friday, September 2, 2005, Buxton summarily suspended Plaintiffs privileges at LRMC. In a letter sent to Plaintiff that day, Buxton stated: It has come to our attention that your obstetrical practice at Lapeer Regional Medical Center poses a substantial likelihood of immediate injury to the health of patients. Preliminary review of a large number of your cases demonstrated frequent deviation from patient safety indicators in your treatment of obstetrical patients and in your delivery of babies. In particular and without limitation, these deviations included numerous, unnecessary instrument-assisted deliveries. (Plaintiffs Response, Ex. D-13, 9/2/2005 Letter.) Buxton testified that he spoke to Dr. Petroff before making this decision, and that he also had heard Dr. Petroffs concerns in a telephone conference call with Dr. Petroff and Dr. Franckowiak. (See Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 4, Buxton Dep. at 231.) Yet, while Dr. Petroff confirmed at his deposition that he was in contact with Buxton in the days leading up to September 2 and had expressed a general concern about what he had learned to that point, he further testified that his review of patient records extended through the Labor Day weekend of September 3 through September 5, 2005, and had not yet concluded as of September 2. (See Petroff Dep. at 110-16.) Pursuant to the LRMC’s Medical Staff Bylaws, a meeting of the Medical Executive Committee (“MEC”) was convened on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 to address the suspension of Plaintiffs privileges. After hearing from Plaintiff, Buxton, and Dr. Petroff, the MEC voted to rescind the summary suspension of Plaintiffs privileges, but further determined (i) that a preceptor should be appointed to supervise all of Plaintiffs operative deliveries, and (ii) that Plaintiffs past “cases of concern” should be reviewed by a consultant recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (See Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 9.) As a result of the MEC’s recommendations, Plaintiffs privileges were reinstated on the morning of Wednesday, September 7, 2005. Following this action by the MEC, Buxton brought this matter to the attention of the LRMC’s Board of Trustees at a special meeting called on September 9, 2005. At this meeting, the Board heard from Dr. Gunda Reddy, the Vice-Chief of the Medical Staff, who explained the reasons for the MEC’s decision. The Board also heard from Weth, who noted the large number of incident reports regarding Plaintiff, and from Dr. Petroff, who outlined his concerns about Plaintiffs practices and opined that Plaintiff “should have been proctored 4 years ago.” (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 10, 9/9/2005 Board Meeting Minutes at 3.) In addition, Dr. Daly — the Chief of the Medical Staff at the time, and Plaintiffs colleague on the Ob/Gyn staff— recounted her experiences with Plaintiff, both as a peer and as a proctor to Plaintiff when he first arrived at LRMC, and Chief Nursing Officer Mango summarized a number of past incidents that had caused him concern about Plaintiffs patient care practices. Plaintiff was not invited to attend this meeting. At the conclusion of this special meeting, the Board went into executive session and voted to reinstate the summary suspension of Plaintiffs privileges as initially imposed by Buxton. Buxton informed Plaintiff of this decision in a letter dated September 9, 2005, and advised him of his right under the Medical Staff Bylaws to request a hearing within 30 days. (See Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 15, 9/9/2005 Letter.) Buxton further informed Plaintiff, however, that his privileges would remain suspended throughout the hearing process. C. The Incident Regarding Patient “L” During the same period in the late summer of 2005 that Plaintiff was going through the recredentialing process, an incident arose concerning the care of a patient identified by the parties as Patient “L.” This patient arrived at LRMC’s emergency room at around 11:00 p.m. on August 8, 2005, and was promptly sent to the hospital’s labor and delivery unit in light of her 20-week pregnancy and her complaints of vaginal bleeding and light to moderate cramping. There, she was evaluated by Nurse Barbara Wager, who then paged Plaintiff at 11:48 p.m. and described to him the results of her examination. Based on this initial screening, Plaintiff formed the “impression that the patient was in labor,” (Plaintiffs Response, Ex. V, Plaintiffs Aff. at ¶7), and he determined that Patient “L” should be admitted to labor and delivery for observation until he could examine her the following morning. Plaintiff examined Patient “L” at 8:37 a.m. on August 9, 2005, and found that she was fully dilated. His examination further revealed a small amount of amniotic fluid on his examination glove, “which indicated that the membranes were ruptured and the patient was in labor.” (Id. at ¶ 8.) Based on these findings, Plaintiff determined that the appropriate course of action was “to rupture the for[e]bag and augment labor in order to evacuate the uterus,” in light of the “non-viability of the fetus (20 weeks) and out of concern for the mother’s safety (risk of infection).” (Id. at ¶ 9.) A nurse who was assisting Plaintiff, Cheryl Currier, became concerned that Plaintiffs treatment plan appeared to contemplate the rupturing of a patient’s membranes after the fetus had a heartbeat, which Nurse Currier viewed as a possible violation of hospital policy. (See Plaintiffs Response, Ex. U, Currier Dep. at 43.) Currier relayed her concern to her supervisor, who in turn informed Chief Nursing Officer Mango. Mango then asked Dr. Allen to examine Patient “L,” and Dr. Allen reported that her examination disclosed only “hourglassing” and no apparent rupturing of the patient’s membranes. (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 33.) Plaintiff testified that he learned of Dr. Allen’s examination only after the fact, and that she did not report her findings to him after her examination. Defendant Buxton became aware of this matter at some point that day, and spoke to Plaintiff about his plan for treating Patient “L.” During this conversation, Plaintiff expressed his frustration “that nursing staff had gotten involved and that Dr. Allen had been brought in,” which had interfered with his ability to manage the care of his patient. (Plaintiffs Response, Ex. D, Buxton Dep. at 151.) When Buxton noted that it was against hospital policy to “perform an abortion,” Plaintiff responded that an abortion was “inevitable” because “[t]he baby’s not viable” and the patient’s membranes were “already ruptured.” (Id. at 152.) Buxton, in turn, explained to Plaintiff that “it was obviously a very difficult situation,” where another physician, Dr. Allen, had evaluated the patient and determined that her membranes were not ruptured, suggesting the possibility that the fetus “potentially could become viable.” (Id. at 154.) According to Buxton, he suggested that the dilemma could be resolved by transferring Patient “L” to another facility, and Plaintiff agreed to pursue such a transfer. Plaintiff, however, testified that Buxton told him that he “want[ed] that patient ... transferred out of the hospital,” and that he threatened Plaintiff that “if you don’t transfer that patient out of here, you may lose your job.” (Plaintiffs Dep. at 23-25.) Plaintiff further testified that he protested against a transfer of Patient “L,” advising Buxton that “she’s not stable for transfer” and could “deliver at any point in time.” (Plaintiffs Dep. at 25.) Despite the parties’ divergent accounts, they agree that Plaintiff contacted another hospital and was told that Patient “L” would not be accepted in her present condition as Plaintiff described it. Buxton followed up with his own phone call, and “the physician on the other end of the phone indicated that if this was ... an inevitable abortion as Dr. Ritten ha[d] told him it was and that the membranes were ruptured ..., that there was nothing they could do for the patient.” (Buxton Dep. at 154-55.) Although Buxton indicated during this call that another LRMC physician had reached a different conclusion, Patient “L” had already gone into active labor before Buxton could arrange for Dr. Allen to call the other hospital and report her findings. Patient “L” delivered her baby later in the afternoon or in the evening of August 9, 2005, but the baby did not survive. This incident forms the basis for the federal EMTALA claim asserted in count I of Plaintiffs complaint, with Plaintiff alleging that his staff privileges were suspended in retaliation against his refusal to transfer a patient with an emergency condition that had not been stabilized. More generally, Plaintiff alleges that the loss of his staff privileges was attributable, either entirely or at least in part, to Buxton’s effort to get back at Plaintiff for disobeying his order to transfer Patient “L,” and for engaging in practices that Buxton viewed as tantamount to performing elective abortions. D. The Hearing on the Suspension of Plaintiffs Staff Privileges In response to Buxton’s September 9, 2005 letter notifying him of the Board’s decision to reinstitute the suspension of his staff privileges, Plaintiff requested a hearing in accordance with the terms of the LRMC’s Medical Staff Bylaws. A hearing committee was formed, consisting of three Board members selected by the Board— David Sommerville, Kathryn Lawter, and Thomas Robinet — and two physicians selected by the MEC — David Brill, M.D., and Robert Brengel, D.O. An outside attorney, Gordon Walker, was engaged to serve as hearing officer. The hearing on the suspension of Plaintiffs privileges consisted of eleven four-hour sessions spanning from November 1, 2005 until June 6, 2006. The LRMC’s witnesses included Weth, Mango, Dr. Franckowiak, and Dr. Petroff. Plaintiff offered his own testimony, as well as the testimony of three other physicians who were presented as experts. Both sides were represented by counsel who examined and cross-examined the witnesses, and members of the hearing committee also posed questions to the witnesses. After the presentation of testimony and the introduction of numerous exhibits, each side presented a written closing summary to the hearing committee. While this hearing was ongoing, Dr. Allen and Dr. Daly appeared at a January 17, 2006 meeting of the Board of Trustees to raise an issue concerning the care of Plaintiffs patients when they appeared at the LRMC for treatment. (See Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 14, 1/17/2006 Board Meeting Minutes at 2.) The doctors were asked to set forth their concerns in a letter to Dr. Reddy, the Chief of Staff, so that Dr. Reddy could in turn send a letter to Plaintiff relaying these concerns. In a resulting letter dated January 20, 2006, Dr. Allen and Dr. Daly, joined by their Ob/Gyn colleague Dr. Gromada, advised Dr. Reddy: (i) that “[tjhere have been several cases of substandard prenatal care rendered by [Plaintiff] in high risk obstetrical patients,” (ii) that Plaintiff had “fail[ed] to provide complete and legible prenatal records for the care of his patients,” and (iii) that Plaintiff had made “[djetrimental comments” to his patients “regarding his current situation and the physicians who are now caring for his patients,” which had “undermine[d] our ability to foster a good relationship in the care of these patients in labor and delivery.” (Plaintiffs Response, Ex. D-35.) Dr. Reddy forwarded these concerns to Plaintiff, who responded with a lengthy January 24, 2006 letter in which he refuted the complaints of his former Ob/Gyn colleagues and suggested that Dr. Daly, in particular, seemed to be engaged in a campaign to tarnish the Board’s impression of Plaintiff while the hearing on the suspension of his privileges was still ongoing. (See Plaintiffs Response, Ex. D-37.) Upon looking into the matter and speaking to Plaintiff, Dr. Reddy concluded that the situation could not be remedied because the lines of communication between Plaintiff and his former colleagues had already been broken in light of the suspension of Plaintiffs privileges. (See Plaintiffs Response, Ex. M, Reddy Dep. at 101-03.) Following the conclusion of the lengthy hearing process, the hearing committee released its July 18, 2006 decision — as supplemented by a brief statement dated August 3, 2006 — in which it determined “by a majority vote” that the suspension of Plaintiffs staff privileges should be continued. (See Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 16.) The vote of the hearing committee was 3-2, with all of the Board members voting to continue the suspension of Plaintiffs privileges, and the two physician members, Drs. Brill and Brengel, voting to reinstate his privileges. As the grounds for its decision, the hearing committee cited (i) “the unusual number of incident reports about [Plaintiff] compiled by the [LRMC’s] Quality Department,” (ii) the “unacceptable care given by [Plaintiff] to many patients which would pose a risk to other [LRMC] patients ... if it were permitted to continue,” (iii) the evidence that Plaintiffs “use of vacuum-assisted deliveries was dramatically in excess of the national norms posing a risk of harm to [LRMC] patients,” and (iv) “the general concern about [Plaintiffs] failure to be appropriately concerned about patient safety issues.” (Id.) This decision was affirmed by an appellate review committee, and the Board of Trustees voted on September 21, 2006 to make the suspension of Plaintiffs privileges permanent. By letter dated September 21, 2006, Buxton informed Plaintiff of the Board’s decision and advised him that the suspension of his privileges would be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. (See Plaintiffs Response, Ex. D-42.) Buxton subsequently provided Plaintiff with a copy of the report that he proposed to provide to the Data Bank and invited Plaintiff to meet with him to discuss this proposed language, (see Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 17), but Plaintiff did not respond to this invitation. Accordingly, Buxton submitted the report to the Data Bank. III. ANALYSIS A. The Standards Governing Defendants’ IMotion Through their present motion, Defendants seek summary judgment in their favor on each of Plaintiffs claims. Under the pertinent Federal Rule, summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As the Supreme Court has explained, “the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In deciding a motion brought under Rule 56, the Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Pack v. Damon Corp., 434 F.3d 810, 813 (6th Cir.2006). Yet, the nonmoving party “may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading,” but “must — by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56] — set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). Moreover, any supporting or opposing affidavits “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(1). Finally, “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence that supports the non-moving party’s claims is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Pack, 434 F.3d at 814 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). B. Issues of Fact Remain as to Plaintiffs Count I Claim of Retaliation in Violation of the EMTALA. Although the first issue raised in Defendants’ motion is the availability of immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq., the Court elects to defer its consideration of this issue, and to first address Defendants’ challenges to Plaintiffs claim of retaliation under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. In particular, Defendants contend that the EMTALA does not apply to the LRMC’s handling of Patient “L,” and that, in any event, the evidence fails to sustain Plaintiffs claim of retaliation under this statute. The Court, however, finds that issues of fact preclude a determination as a matter of law in Defendants’ favor on either of these questions. As described by the Sixth Circuit, the EMTALA imposes three general sets of requirements upon hospitals with emergency departments: Section (a) requires hospitals to provide appropriate medical screening examinations to those who come to emergency rooms. Section (b) requires hospitals to stabilize patients who have emergency medical conditions or who are in labor, or to transfer them only in accordance with section (c). Section (c) generally prohibits transfers without a written request and waiver by the patient, a signed physician certification, or a qualified medical person’s certification after consultation with a physician. Roberts ex rel. Johnson v. Galen of Virginia, Inc., 325 F.3d 776, 786 (6th Cir.2003) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a)-(c)). In addition, the EMTALA prohibits a hospital from “penaliz[ing] or tak[ing] adverse action against ... a physician because the ... physician refuses to authorize the transfer of an individual with an emergency medical condition that has not been stabilized.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(i). In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant LRMC violated this latter provision by suspending his staff privileges in retaliation against his refusal to transfer Patient “L” to another hospital. In a threshold challenge to this claim of retaliation, Defendants argue that the terms of the EMTALA ceased to apply to the LRMC’s care and treatment of Patient “L” once this patient had been admitted to the hospital’s labor and delivery unit. As Defendants point out, Patient “L” was admitted to the labor and delivery unit at Plaintiffs express direction, with instructions that she be kept under observation until Plaintiff could examine her the following morning. (See Plaintiffs Response, Ex. V, Plaintiffs Aff. at ¶ 2.) In Defendants’ view, the admission of Patient “L” triggers the application of the EMTALA’s implementing regulation, which provides that a hospital satisfies its obligations under the statute once it has “screened an individual ... and found the individual to have an emergency medical condition, and admits that individual as an inpatient in good faith in order to stabilize the emergency medical condition.” 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(d)(2)(i); see also Bryant v. Adventist Health SystemfWest, 289 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir.2002) (“We hold that EMTALA’s stabilization requirement ends when an individual is admitted for inpatient care.”); Morgan v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1130 (S.D.Ala.2005) (holding that “the EMTALA obligation to stabilize a patient ceases at the time of the patient’s admission as an inpatient, unless the hospital fails to admit the patient in good faith or does so as a subterfuge to avert EMTALA liability”). For a number of reasons, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the admission of Patient “L” to the LRMC’s labor and delivery unit defeats Plaintiffs appeal to the EMTALA’s protection against retaliation. First, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has issued “clarifying policies” that caution against treating pregnant women as inpatients — and, hence, generally beyond the reach of the EMTALA — merely because they are routinely sent from the emergency room to the labor and delivery unit for admission, evaluation, and treatment: [HHS] believes that EMTALA requires that a hospital’s dedicated emergency department would not only encompass what is generally thought of as a hospital’s “emergency room,” but would also include other departments of hospitals, such as labor and delivery departments and psychiatric units of hospitals, that provide emergency or labor and delivery services, or both, to individuals who may present as unscheduled ambulatory patients but are routinely admitted to be evaluated and treated. Because labor is a condition defined by statute as one in which EMTALA protections are afforded, any area of the hospital that offers such medical services to treat individuals in labor ..., even if the hospital’s practice is to admit such individuals as inpatients rather than treating them on an outpatient basis, would be considered a dedicated emergency department under our revised definition in this final rule. In such cases, whether the department of the hospital chooses to directly admit the emergency patient upon presentment is irrelevant to the determination of whether the department is a dedicated emergency department. 68 Fed.Reg. 53,222, 53,229 (Sept. 9, 2003). The practice followed in this case with respect to Patient “L” appears to comport with the situation addressed in this policy clarification, where both Plaintiff and the nurse who initially evaluated Patient “L” speak of having promptly “admitted” this patient to the labor and delivery unit for observation, before she had been seen by a physician or a course of treatment had been determined. Under these circumstances, the Court is reluctant to find as a matter of law that Patient “L” had been admitted for inpatient care, such that the terms of the EMTALA were no longer applicable. In any event, the record presented by Defendants is flatly inconsistent with their appeal to the above-cited regulation. As noted, this regulation absolves a hospital of any further obligations under the EMTALA only if it “has screened an individual ... and found the individual to have an emergency medical condition,” and then has “admitted] that individual as an inpatient in good faith in order to stabilize the emergency medical condition.” 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(d)(2)(i). Yet, Defendants have denied that Patient “L” was found upon initial screening to have an emergency medical condition — to the contrary, the screening nurse, Barbara Wager, states in her affidavit that she “evaluated Patient L and determined that the patient was not in labor.” (Defendants’ Reply, Ex. 46, Wager Aff. at ¶ 4.) Similarly, Defendants have taken the position that there was no need to stabilize Patient “L” ’s condition before she could be transferred to another hospital. (See Buxton Dep. at 150, 153 (denying that he was told by anyone that Patient “L” was unstable to transfer out of the hospital, and further denying that Plaintiff told him that the patient was not stabilized and could not be safely transferred); see also Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 33 (Dr. Allen’s report of her examination of Patient “L,” in which she reports her finding that “the patient did not appear to be ruptured” and states that she discussed with the patient the option of “transfer to another facility”).) Under this record, Defendants can hardly claim — and neither can the Court conclude as a matter of law — that Patient “L” was admitted to the labor and delivery unit for the purpose of stabilizing a recognized emergency medical condition. In sharp contrast, there is ample evidence that Plaintiff believed Patient “L” to be suffering from an emergency medical condition that required stabilization. In particular, Plaintiff states in his affidavit that based on the information relayed to him on the night Patient “L” was admitted to the labor and delivery unit, he formed the “impression that the patient was in labor,” and that he confirmed this belief upon examining the patient the following morning. (Plaintiffs Response, Ex. V, Plaintiffs Aff. at ¶¶ 7-8.) In addition, he states in his affidavit, and testified at his deposition, that he refused to agree to a transfer of Patient “L” to another hospital because she could have delivered at any time and thus was not stable. (Plaintiffs Aff. at ¶ 12; see also Plaintiffs Dep. at 25.) While the record discloses a disagreement between Plaintiff and Dr. Allen as to whether Patient “L” ’s membranes had ruptured or she was truly in labor, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that this disagreement is irrelevant to Plaintiffs entitlement to protection under the EMTALA’s anti-retaliation provision. The statute prohibits taking adverse action against a physician who “refuses to authorize the transfer of an individual with an emergency medical condition that has not been stabilized.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(i). Under the analogous Title VII provision that prohibits retaliation against an employee who has opposed an unlawful employment practice, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), “a violation ... can be found whether or not the challenged employment practice ultimately is found to be unlawful,” so long as the employee has a “reasonable and good faith belief that the opposed practices were unlawful.” Johnson v. University of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 579-80 (6th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Likewise, the protection of the EMTALA surely must extend to a physician who reasonably believes that a patient is suffering from an emergency medical condition that has not been stabilized and who opposes a transfer on this ground, even if it is subsequently determined that the patient did not suffer from such a condition or that any such condition had been stabilized. Consequently, the Court rejects Defendants’ contention that the EMTALA does not apply to the LRMC’s handling of Patient “L.” For similar reasons, the Court readily rejects Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiffs EMTALA retaliation claim is defeated by the absence of evidence of the LRMC’s “actual knowledge” of Patient “L” ’s emergency medical condition. See Roberts, 325 F.3d at 786 (explaining that a hospital cannot be held liable for a breach of the duty to stabilize a patient absent its “actual knowledge” of an emergency medical condition that requires stabilization). In Defendants’ view, the requisite showing of actual knowledge is defeated by Plaintiffs own testimony that Buxton chose to credit Dr. Allen’s findings over Plaintiffs assessment of Patient “L”’s condition. Yet, a hospital can hardly disclaim actual knowledge of an emergency medical condition when it is expressly told of such a condition by a treating physician, but then chooses to disregard this finding in favor of another physician’s divergent opinion. And, again, regardless of what Buxton or some other physician might have believed about Patient “L” ’s condition, the Court construes the EMTALA’s anti-retaliation provision as extending to a physician, such as Plaintiff, who reasonably determines that a patient is suffering from an emergency condition that has not been stabilized. A hospital is not free to discount a physician’s reasonable evaluation and then retaliate against the physician with impunity, on the ground that it did not accept or agree with the physician’s stated finding of an emergency medical condition. Next, Defendants suggest that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and also cannot establish that the LRMC’s stated non-retaliatory reason for suspending his privileges is pretextual. As the parties observe, there is no case law addressing the standards that should govern a claim under the EMTALA’s anti-retaliation provision, so both sides have agreed that it is appropriate to analyze Plaintiffs claim under the standards that govern Title VII claims of retaliation. Under this analogous case law, a plaintiff “may establish retaliation either by introducing direct evidence of retaliation or by proffering circumstantial evidence that would support an inference of retaliation.” Imwalle v. Reliance Medical Products, Inc., 515 F.3d 531, 543 (6th Cir. 2008). In the absence of direct evidence, a plaintiffs claim of retaliation is analyzed under the familiar evidentiary framework adopted by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Imwalle, 515 F.3d at 544. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the record here features direct evidence of retaliation, such that there is no need to proceed under the McDonnell Douglas approach. According to Plaintiff, Buxton told him that “if you don’t transfer that patient out of here, you may lose your job.” (Plaintiffs Dep. at 23; see also id. at 356.) Roughly three weeks later, Buxton summarily suspended Plaintiffs staff privileges at LRMC, thereby terminating his ability to practice at this hospital. If a trier of fact were to accept Plaintiffs testimony that Buxton threatened him with the loss of his job if he failed to transfer Patient “L,” no inferences would be required to conclude that Plaintiffs refusal to transfer the patient “was a motivating factor” in Buxton’s decision to suspend his privileges. Imwalle, 515 F.3d at 544. Rather, the trier of fact could readily and directly conclude that Buxton had done precisely what he threatened to do. In an effort to avoid this result, Defendants suggest that Buxton’s purported statement was too “ambiguous” to qualify as direct evidence of his motive for suspending Plaintiffs staff privileges. See, e.g., White v. Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, 429 F.3d 232, 239 (6th Cir.2005) (explaining that ambiguous comments do not constitute direct evidence of discrimination). As evidence of this ambiguity, Defendants point to Plaintiffs own assertions in his response brief that Buxton was angry at him, not because he refused to transfer Patient “L,” but rather because he viewed Plaintiffs treatment plan for this patient as tantamount to performing an elective abortion in violation of hospital policy. It follows, in Defendants’ view, that there are questions about Buxton’s motives for his actions, questions that are not resolved by Buxton’s alleged threat. Such questions, however, do not render Buxton’s statement ineligible for treatment as direct evidence of a retaliatory motive. On its face, this statement disclosed Buxton’s intent to take adverse action if Plaintiff refused to transfer Patient “L” to another hospital. It is utterly immaterial why Buxton formed this intent, and any uncertainty in the record as to this separate question simply does not affect the “direct evidence” inquiry. Under the EMTALA, Plaintiff was protected against retaliation for refusing to authorize the transfer of a patient who, in his medical judgment, was suffering from an emergency medical condition that had not been stabilized. Plaintiff has testified that he made such a judgment as to Patient “L,” and that he conveyed this assessment to Buxton as the reason for opposing a transfer. The “ambiguities” identified by Defendants raise questions only as to whether Buxton agreed with this assessment of Patient “L” ’s condition — in other words, whether he believed that Plaintiffs claim of protected activity was legitimate — or whether he instead believed that Plaintiff had misstated this patient’s condition in order to justify his determination to perform an elective abortion. Yet, as explained, the availability of protection under the EMTALA’s anti-retaliation provision does not hinge upon the ultimate correctness of a physician’s medical judgment that a patient should not be transferred. Neither, then, can the statute’s protection turn upon whether a hospital official agrees or disagrees with this judgment— either way, adverse action is not permitted. It is enough, then, that Buxton’s purported statement forged a direct and explicit link between a refusal to transfer a patient and a resulting adverse action. To be sure, Defendants remain free to attempt to persuade the trier of fact that Buxton did not make the statement Plaintiff attributes to him. Alternatively, they may seek to show that, despite this statement, Buxton’s subsequent decision to suspend Plaintiffs privileges was based on factors other than Plaintiffs refusal to transfer Patient “L.” They may also attempt to cast doubt upon the reasonableness of Plaintiffs claimed belief that Patient “L” was suffering from an emergency medical condition. Nonetheless, these are all questions for the trier of fact to decide, where Plaintiff has produced direct evidence of an impermissible ground for the suspension of his staff privileges — namely, that this action was taken in response to Plaintiffs refusal to transfer a patient under circumstances that he believed would violate the EMTALA. Finally, Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs direct evidence of retaliatory motive necessary extends only to Buxton’s own decision to suspend Plaintiffs staff privileges, and not to the subsequent decisions by the Board of Trustees and the hearing committee to continue this suspension. As to the action by the Board of Trustees, however, it bears emphasis (i) that Buxton was a member of the Board, (ii) that he evidently called for the meeting at which the Board decided whether to reinstate Buxton’s summary suspension of Plaintiffs privileges, and (iii) that he addressed the Board at this meeting, providing “his account of how he came to place a summary suspension on” Plaintiff. (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 10, 9/9/2005 Board Meeting Minutes at 1.) In addition, there is evidence that, prior to the Board meeting, Buxton told at least one other Board member about Plaintiffs refusal to transfer Patient “L.” (See Plaintiffs Response, Ex. N, Lawter Dep. at 99-100.) Under this record, “a reasonable jury could conclude that [Buxton] was in a position to influence” the Board’s decision to reinstate the suspension of Plaintiffs privileges. Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 355 (6th Cir.1998). Buxton’s role in the subsequent hearing committee process, in contrast, was surely more limited. Yet, even assuming that he had no opportunity to inject his purportedly retaliatory motives into this process, Plaintiffs staff privileges had already been summarily suspended for nearly a year before the hearing committee reached its decision to continue this suspension. Defendants have not identified any authority for the proposition that such an extended suspension of privileges would fail to qualify as a “penal[ty]” or “adverse action” under the EMTALA’s anti-retaliation provision. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment in their favor on Plaintiffs claim of retaliation under this statute. C. Defendants’ Entitlement to HCQIA Immunity Encompasses Only the Final Stage of the Process Through Which Plaintiffs Privileges Were Suspended, and Not the Initial Suspension of Plaintiffs Privileges Pri- or to a Hearing. 1. The Standards Governing Defendants’ Claim of HCQIA Immunity The Court now returns to the principal argument advanced in Defendants’ motion — namely, that they are shielded from liability under some or all of the theories advanced in Plaintiffs complaint, in light of the immunity conferred under the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq., for decisions reached in a hospital’s professional review process. Under this statute, if a “professional review action” meets certain specified standards, then the professional review body that took the action, the members of and staff to this body, and “any person who participates with or assists the body with respect to the action” is immune from “liability] in damages under any law of the United States or of any State ... with respect to the action.” 42 U.S.C. § 11111(a)(1). To secure the immunity offered under the HCQIA, the “professional review action” in question must have been taken: (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care, (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter, (3) after adequate notice and hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved or after such other procedures as are fair to the physician under the circumstances, and (4) in the reasonable belief that the action was warranted by the facts known after such reasonable effort to obtain facts and after meeting the requirements of paragraph (3). 42 U.S.C. § 11112(a). The statute further establishes a presumption that a professional review action has met these standards, and thus qualifies for immunity, “unless the presumption is rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.” 42 U.S.C. § 11112(a). As the Sixth Circuit has observed, the HCQIA’s rebuttable presumption “creates an unusual summary judgment standard,” under which a court must ask whether “a reasonable jury, viewing the facts in the best light for the plaintiff, [could] conclude that he has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendants’ actions are outside the scope of § 11112(a).” Meyers v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 341 F.3d 461, 468 (6th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). In determining whether a professional review action meets the criteria of § 11112(a), the courts apply “an objective standard, rather than a subjective good faith requirement.” Meyers, 341 F.3d at 468. 2. The Ultimate Decision of the Hearing Committee to Suspend Plaintiffs Privileges Meets the Standards for HCQIA Immunity, but Issues of Fact Remain as to Whether the Earlier Decisions by Buxton and the Board of Trustees Are Also Shielded by Immunity. (a) Buxton’s Initial Decision to Suspend Plaintiffs Privileges Against this legal backdrop, the Court turns to the decisions by Buxton, the Board of Trustees, and the hearing committee to suspend — and, in turn, to reinstate and continue the suspension of— Plaintiffs staff privileges. Having addressed Buxton’s initial decision in detail in the context of Plaintiffs EMTALA claim of retaliation, little further analysis is needed to find that this decision does not meet the standards for HCQIA immunity, at least not as a matter of law. First, there is sufficient evidence in the record from which a trier of fact could conclude that Buxton did not make this decision “in the reasonable belief that the action was in .furtherance of quality-health care,” but rather on less appropriate — and, indeed, legally impermissible— grounds. As explained earlier, Plaintiff has raised genuine issues of fact as to whether Buxton suspended his privileges in retaliation against his EMTALA-protected refusal to transfer a patient who was suffering from an emergency medical condition that had not been stabilized. If Buxton acted on this basis, a trier of fact could readily conclude that such a decision was not grounded in considerations of quality health care, but instead upon an unfounded belief that Plaintiff was performing elective abortions in violation of LRMC policy. To be sure, there was some basis for Buxton to question whether Patient “L” had an emergency medical condition that would prevent her transfer. In particular, the examination performed by Dr. Allen suggested otherwise. Yet, even so, a trier of fact could nonetheless conclude that Buxton’s decision failed to satisfy the second prong of the HCQIA immunity standard — namely, that this decision was made “after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter.” As Buxton describes his dilemma at the time, he had been presented with two opposing opinions of Plaintiff and Dr. Allen, one of whom found that the patient’s membranes were ruptured and one of whom determined that they were not. {See Buxton Dep. at 154.) Yet, he made no apparent effort to resolve this dilemma — he testified, for example, that he did not contact Dr. Allen directly at the time to inquire how her evaluation could differ in such an important respect from Plaintiffs assessment. {See id. at 156.) Instead, he evidently chose Dr. Allen’s opinion over Plaintiffs, without any explanation in the record for doing so. Even afterward, Defendants have not pointed to any evidence that Buxton tried to get to the bottom of this matter. A trier of fact could find that this was not a reasonable investigation of the facts under the circumstances. Even if the trier of fact were to conclude that Buxton’s decision to suspend Plaintiffs privileges was not made in retaliation against Plaintiffs refusal to transfer Patient “L,” but rather was based on the data compiled as the LRMC prepared to decide whether Plaintiffs privileges should be renewed for another two-year term, there still would be an evidentiary basis for concluding that Buxton failed to make a “reasonable effort to obtain the facts” before he summarily suspended Plaintiffs privileges. When this data first came to light, revealing both a high number of incident reports about Plaintiff and a “patient safety indicators” report that seemingly disclosed a high trauma rate for Plaintiffs vacuum deliveries, it was determined at a meeting among Buxton, Weth, and two physicians — the Chair of the Credentials Committee, Dr. Franckowiak, and the Chair of the Quality Committee, Dr. Dombroske — that an outside obstetrician should review the materials concerning Plaintiff. Buxton selected Dr. Petroff for this task, and he, in turn, asked to be provided the medical records for about 90 of Plaintiffs patients. Yet, the record is clear that Dr. Petroff s review of the requested record was still ongoing when Buxton made his decision in September 2, 2005 to summarily suspend Plaintiffs staff privileges. What is more, Dr. Petroff s review had discounted one of the two concerns that motivated the retention of an outside consultant, with Dr. Petroff concluding that the high trauma rate shown on the “patient safety indicators” report was too high and reflected coding errors. Although he had instead identified a different concern — namely, that Plaintiffs rate of vacuum delivery appeared to be high — he was continuing to look into this matter, and he characterized his concern as stemming, in large part, from his inability to tell from the medical records that had been provided whether Plaintiff had identified a sufficient justification for his greater use of this technique. (See Petroff Dep. at 140 (explaining the “difficulty” he was experiencing “with any determination that standard of care was met,” where the requisite information for this determination “just didn’t exist” in the records he was given).) Under this record, a trier of fact could find that Buxton acted without awaiting the development of a more complete record, and without any seeming need to act as precipitously as he did. Finally, a trier of fact could also conclude that Buxton lacked a “reasonable belief that the [summary suspension of Plaintiffs privileges] was warranted by the facts known” to him at the time. As stated in his letter to Plaintiff announcing this decision, Buxton concluded that Plaintiffs practice “pose[d] a substantial likelihood of immediate injury to the health of patients,” and he cited “[i]n particular” Plaintiffs “numerous, unnecessary instrument-assisted deliveries.” (Plaintiffs Response, Ex. D-13.) Again, however, Dr. Petroffs record review was still in progress at the time, and he acknowledged that his principal concern was that he could not tell whether Plaintiffs high rate of vacuum deliveries was justified. In addition, there seemingly was little or no evidence available to Buxton at the time to suggest that Plaintiffs high rate of vacuum deliveries, in and of itself, posed a “substantial likelihood of immediate injury to the health of patients.” To the contrary, Plaintiff has produced evidence that Plaintiffs rate of vacuum deliveries was not significantly higher than Dr. Daly’s rate of such deliveries in the relevant time frame. (See Plaintiffs Response, Ex. D-14.) In addition, Plaintiff has offered the opinions of multiple experts that vacuum deliveries, in and of themselves, pose no especially heightened risk to patient health and well-being. Thus, Defendants are not entitled to immunity from liability under the HCQIA for Plaintiffs claims arising from Buxton’s initial suspension of his staff privileges. (b) The Board’s Decision to Reinstate the Suspension of Plaintiffs Privileges Following Buxton’s initial decision on Friday, September 2, 2005 to summarily suspend Plaintiffs privileges, the Medical Executive Committee (“MEC”) met on Tuesday, September 6, 2005, and promptly voted to rescind this summary suspension. Just three days later, however, the Board of Trustees convened a special meeting and voted to reinstate the summary suspension of Plaintiffs privileges as initially imposed by Buxton. Upon measuring this action against the standards of § 11112(a), the Court again concludes that Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could find that these standards were not met. As to the requirement that an action be taken “after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter,” it can at least be said that the Board’s decision was based on a more complete factual record than the one available to Buxton a few days earlier. First, the Board minutes reflect that “Dr. Petroff gave a full account of his review of the charts that were forwarded to him,” (Defendants’ Motion, Ex. 10, 9/9/2005 Board Meeting Minutes at 3), suggesting that Dr. Petroffs review was by then completed. He also provided more specific information about the concerns he had identified in his review. In addition, the Board heard from Chief Nursing Officer Mango and Dr. Daly regarding their specific experiences with Plaintiff, with Mango, in particular, detailing instances of apparently questionable care. Yet, while the Board heard a more thorough explanation of what Dr. Petroffs review had revealed and the basis for his concerns about Plaintiffs practice, this presentation also raised some seemingly obvious questions that the Board evidently did not pursue. As noted earlier, Plaintiffs rate of vacuum deliveries was not substantially different from the rate of at least one other LRMC Ob/Gyn, Dr. Daly, but the record does not disclose that the Board inquired about how Plaintiffs practices might differ from those of his colleagues or what the explanation for such differences might be. Such further inquiry would seem particularly appropriate here, where Dr. Petroff presented literature to the Board reflecting a heightened risk associated with vacuum deliveries and also suggested that the LRMC might face additional liability in the future because of Plaintiffs use of this technique, and where several Board members evidently gave Dr. Petroffs presentation significant weight in their decision to reinstate the suspension of Plaintiffs privileges. Moreover, although Dr. Petroffs concerns were based in part upon his inability to determine from his record review whether Plaintiff had a sufficient justification for his use of vacuum extraction in any given case, there is no indication in the record that the Board explored any options for shedding additional light on this issue. It was later revealed, for example, that because of the limited time allotted for his record review, Dr. Petroff had not been provided with any fetal heart monitoring strips that might have supplied the missing justification for vacuum deliveries in some cases. And, of course, Plaintiff himself might have been able to explain his decisionmaking process in the cases that gave rise to Dr. Petroffs concerns, but he was not invited to address the Board. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that a trier of fact could conclude that the Board’s fact-gathering efforts were not reasonable. The Court further holds that Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the Board acted “in the reasonable belief that [its] action was warranted by the facts known” to it at the time. Importantly, by the time of the September 9, 2005 special board meeting, the MEC had determined that Plaintiffs staff privileges should be reinstated, with the conditions that a preceptor be appointed to supervise his operative deliveries and that certain of his cases be reviewed by an outside consultant. The Board also heard from Dr. Reddy, the Vice-Chief of Staff, who explained the reasons for the MEC’s vote to reinstate Plaintiffs staff privileges, expressed the MEC’s concern that Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to address the concerns about his practice, and explained that this was the reason for the MEC’s selection of a preceptor to supervise Plaintiffs operative deliveries. Despite the recommendation of the MEC and Dr. Reddy’s explanation on this point, the Board voted to reinstate the suspension of Plaintiffs privileges, evidently concluding that the conditions recommended by the MEC were inadequate to alleviate the Board’s concerns regarding Plaintiffs practice. The record is utterly silent, however, as to why the appointment of a preceptor would have been ineffective to address these concerns, particularly the ones raised by Dr. Petroff. Nothing in the minutes of the Board meeting or the subsequent executive session sheds any light whatsoever on this question. Rather, the minutes from the executive session address only the MEC’s other recommendation — namely, that an outside consultant should review certain of Plaintiffs past “cases of concern.” As to this recommendation, the minutes reflect the Board’s opinion that such a review “could take up to a year to complete,” and that the Board “could not wait this long” while allowing the MEC’s recommended course of action to remain in effect. (Plaintiffs Response, Ex. D-20.) The effect of this decision, of course, was that the Board’s summary suspension of Plaintiffs privileges remained in effect for a year while the parties pursued a lengthy hearing process. While this might well be warranted under a record evidencing a substantial risk to patient health and well-being if Plaintiff were permitted to practice in the interim, a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the Board’s decision lacked this sort of factual support. As Plaintiff points out, the Board evidently was not presented with any evidence of harm caused to a patient by Plaintiffs practices to date, and no Board member contended otherwise at his or her deposition. To the extent that Plaintiffs practices were deemed likely to cause such harm in the future, a trier of fact could conclude that the Board lacked a reasonable basis for rejecting the MEC’s determination that proctoring was an adequate safeguard against this risk. Finally, and as discussed earlier, a trier of fact certainly could question the extent to which Buxton might have brought his allegedly retaliatory motives to bear upon the Board’s decisionmaking process at its September 9 special meeting. Consequently, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that the Board’s reinstatement of the suspension of Plaintiffs staff privileges meets the standards for immunity under the HCQIA. (c) The Hearing Committee’s Decision to Continue the Suspension of Plaintiffs Staff Privileges The final candidate for HCQIA immunity in this case is the July 18, 2006 determination of the hearing committee that the suspension of Plaintiffs staff privileges should be continued. Although the question is a close one, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to produced sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that this decision fell short of the criteria set forth at § 11112(a) for a grant of immunity. In contrast to the summary and rather hurried decisions of Buxton and the Board, it is clear that the hearing process provided under the LRMC’s Medical Staff Bylaws afforded Plaintiff a far greater opportunity to present facts, information, and argument in support of his effort to regain his sta