Log In

Reset Password
BERMUDA | RSS PODCAST

Dismissed doctor seeks $1.6m in damages

A fired doctor’s sweeping lawsuit against the Bermuda Hospitals Board has closed with allegations of wrongful dismissal, fabricated records, defamation and the deliberate infliction of emotional distress.

Charles Curtis-Thomas is calling for damages to the tune of $1.6 million against BHB in the 2012 case, in which he was dismissed from the hospitalist programme after 21 days on the job at King Edward VII Memorial Hospital (KEMH).

Included in the suit is Chief of Medicine Keith Chiappa, who earlier in the trial told the court: “My job is to make sure there are no dead patients” — to illustrate how seriously he took any potential risk to patients’ health.

Dr Chiappa and others claimed Dr Curtis-Thomas had “unsafe clinical initiative, and lacked insight into his limitations”, BHB’s lawyer Stephanie Hanson said yesterday.

The freshly-hired doctor was terminated on June 23, 2012 while still within his three months’ probation.

However, the plaintiff maintains that Dr Chiappa’s comments were “malicious, fabricated, unsubstantiated and malicious statements” — and that Dr Chiappa defamed him by copying other staff in on the allegations.

Ms Hanson responded that the discussion among head BHB staff was covered by the principle of qualified privilege, meaning the communications were between persons in authority or trust, and thus not defamatory.

“To defeat qualified privilege, the plaintiff must demonstrate malice,” she told Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman.

For example, Ms Hanson argued that recruiter Cynthia Arruda — key in the hiring Dr Curtis-Thomas — had been necessarily copied in on the concerns, to inform her of the need for a new recruit, but also to allow her to “understand what happened with Dr Curtis-Thomas, to review and establish if there were any learning points”.

Mr Justice Hellman yesterday heard closing submissions from both sides, but has yet to rule on the matter.

For Dr Curtis-Thompson, who is the spouse of a Bermudian, the case has been long in the making: his complaint was drafted in October of 2012, alleging widespread workplace bullying at BHB.

He has represented himself throughout proceedings in the Supreme Court, telling The Royal Gazette that his case would otherwise have put him $75,000 out of pocket to pursue through a lawyer.

However, Ms Hanson argued that under the terms of the plaintiff’s contract with the hospital, which commenced on June 25, 2012, it “expressly states that during probation, either party may terminate for any reason and without notice”.

“It doesn’t have to be a good reason, and it doesn’t have to be a fair reason — there is no need even to be told of the reason,” she added.

Dr Curtis-Thomas worked continuously during his three weeks’ employment, and has argued that hospital management unfairly targeted him for making a complaint about working for 21 days straight.

However, she said, the plaintiff accepted during cross examination that hospitalist service director Arlene Basden had already raised concerns about his performance during his employment.

Questions had also been raised about his level of clinical experience before he commenced the job, she said — to which Mr Justice Hellman responded: “Nevertheless, they hired him.”

Ms Hanson said that it wasn’t until a doctor started performing out on the floor that management could appraise their true ability.

In Dr Chiappa’s testimony, the court heard that he was concerned about the new medical officer starting unsupervised work on the night shift.

Dr Curtis-Thomas has argued that the hospital failed to provide him with the proper orientation, but the Chief of Medicine testified that even without it, “a doctor should be able to safely treat patients”.

“A good doctor could treat patients in a cave — a bad doctor couldn’t treat patients in the best facility in the world,” Dr Chiappa told the court in his evidence.

Also at issue was whether it was incumbent upon KEMH to train the new hire, since it is classed as community hospital rather than a teaching facility.

Mr Justice Hellman’s judgment on the case is due at a later date.