Opinion
904 CA 22-00652
12-23-2022
Aston B. WILLIAMS, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KALEIDA HEALTH, Defendant-Respondent.
ZDARSKY, SAWICKI & AGOSTINELLI LLP, BUFFALO (GERALD T. WALSH OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (SARAH NAGEL MILLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
ZDARSKY, SAWICKI & AGOSTINELLI LLP, BUFFALO (GERALD T. WALSH OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (SARAH NAGEL MILLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff is a licensed physician who had medical staff privileges at medical facilities owned by defendant, Kaleida Health, including Buffalo General Medical Center (Buffalo General). Plaintiff applied to defendant for, as relevant to this appeal, a medical exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers. In response, plaintiff received a letter from defendant informing him that his medical exemption was denied following review, and plaintiff's privileges at Buffalo General were subsequently suspended due to his noncompliance with the vaccine mandate. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action and moved by order to show cause for, inter alia, injunctive relief preventing defendant from revoking his privileges at Buffalo General or deeming those privileges abandoned. Defendant moved to, among other things, dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion, granted defendant's motion in part, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
We reject plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred by denying his motion and granting defendant's motion in part. Plaintiff does not dispute that his complaint alleges a claim of improper practices under Public Health Law § 2801-b (1). Further, plaintiff states in his appellate brief that, after the court's order, he filed a complaint with the Public Health and Health Planning Counsel (PHHPC) under the Public Health Law. This Court has held that "[a]n injunction action under Public Health Law § 2801-c is the exclusive remedy for an alleged violation of section 2801-b (1)" ( Farooq v. Millard Fillmore Hosp. , 172 A.D.2d 1063, 1063, 569 N.Y.S.2d 320 [4th Dept. 1991] ; see Matter of Fogel v. Kaleida Health , 175 A.D.3d 1102, 1103, 105 N.Y.S.3d 691 [4th Dept. 2019] ). Where, as here, a physician challenges a determination to suspend or diminish that physician's professional privileges in a hospital, Public Health Law § 2801–b (2) "provides the allegedly aggrieved physician with a procedural avenue through which he [or she] can present his [or her] claim of a wrongful denial of professional privileges to the Public Health Council" ( Guibor v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., Inc. , 46 N.Y.2d 736, 737, 413 N.Y.S.2d 638, 386 N.E.2d 247 [1978] ), which must then investigate the allegations of the complaint (see § 2801-b [3] ). Therefore, we conclude that the court properly denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's motion in part, by dismissing the complaint without prejudice, on the basis that plaintiff must first pursue his remedy before the PHHPC (see generally Fogel , 175 A.D.3d at 1103, 105 N.Y.S.3d 691 ; Shapiro v. Central Gen. Hosp. , Inc. , 173 A.D.2d 601, 603, 570 N.Y.S.2d 181 [2d Dept. 1991] ).