A case of wrongful dismissal and defamation against the Bermuda Hospitals Board and chief of medicine Keith Chiappa has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

However, fired doctor Charles Curtis-Thomas — who had sought $1.6 million in damages from BHB after being fired three weeks into the job — has said he’ll appeal yesterday’s ruling by Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman.

Dr Curtis-Thomas, a non-Bermudian spouse of a Bermudian, has pursued his case for two years, arguing that staff in King Edward VII Memorial Hospital (KEMH) have caused irreparable harm to his reputation.

He was dismissed on July 23, 2012 after working on the hospitalist programme for just 21 days. Arguing his own case in court against BHB lawyer Stephanie Hanson, Dr Curtis-Thompson — a member of the Bermuda Public Services Union — said his union contract stipulated that no employee be unjustly discharged or laid off.

However, Ms Hanson pointed out in response that Dr Curtis-Thompson had been under his three-month probation at the time, and could be dismissed for any reason.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Hellman said that the Board had been entitled to dismissal without cause or reason — although in fact Dr Curtis-Thompson’s employers had deemed he was “not competent to carry out the role of medical doctor” — during probation.

Mr Justice Hellman also accepted the defence argument that the uncomplimentary terms used for the plaintiff as part of his dismissal had been covered by qualified privilege as an internal BHB document, and couldn’t be taken as defamatory.

He also dismissed the claim that Dr Curtis-Thomas had been subjected to emotional stress, in breach of his contract, at having to work 21 days straight.

In its defence, BHB had argued that working long shifts was part of the special nature of medical work, and Mr Justice Hellman deemed the terms of the claim — including “feeling degraded, depression, loss of enjoyment, fear, frustration, headache, humiliation” to be exaggerated.

“I appreciate that this result will come as a disappointment to Dr Curtis-Thomas,” Mr Justice Hellman concluded. “He has hitherto enjoyed a successful career in medicine, and the Court wishes him well with the future progress of his medical career.”

Undaunted, Dr Curtis-Thomas vowed to The Royal Gazette that he would fight on, citing a series of “palpable errors” in the ruling.

Dr Curtis-Thomas insisted that his contract with the BPSU meant that his termination, “whether under probation or not, should be in accordance with policy and procedure”.

“A probationary employee is not a second-class citizen,” he added. He also cited procedural errors at the close of trial and said Mr Justice Hellman had requested additional legal authorities from defence counsel after the trial closed on July 15 — materials to which he alleges he should have had the right to respond.

“The thing I’m doing isn’t for me — it’s for those coming behind me,” he said, maintaining that BHB had mistakenly neglected to provide him with a full orientation on his first day of work — but had now changed its practices.

Editor’s note: It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding on-going court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.