Alaa E. Elkharwily, M.D. v. Mayo Holding Co., No. 15-1492 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a medical doctor certified in internal medicine, filed suit against Mayo after he was terminated. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim under Minnesota's Vulnerable Victims Act, Minn. Stat. 626.557, subdiv. 3(a), where plaintiff failed to report the violations at issue and his conclusory allegations do not show compliance with the internal reporting procedure; the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's defamation claim where Mayo's motive and occasion for making the allegedly defamatory statements were proper and the criticisms were based on reasonable care; the court rejected plaintiff's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. 1395dd(b)(1), claim because EMTALA claims do not apply to patients who are stabilized, and plaintiff had already stated that the patient at issue had been stabilized; assuming without deciding plaintiff established prima facie cases under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. 181.932, subdiv. 1, and EMTALA or that he engaged in protected conduct under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h), Mayo established legitimate non-discriminatory grounds for the termination and plaintiff failed to establish that his employment termination was pretext for retaliation or motivated solely by his reports of Minnesota Whistleblower Act, EMTALA, or False Claims Act violations; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the district court's order striking his overlength 51-page declaration, and in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion to defer summary judgment for additional discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment law. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim that he was terminated in violation of Minnesota's Vulnerable Victims Act as he never properly submitted reports about violations of the Act; comments about plaintiff's performance as an employee were protected by qualified privilege because they were made in the course of evaluating and investigating his work performance and the comments were based on reasonable cause; claim that plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for refusal to transfer an unstable patient in violation of EMTALA was not supported by the record as he had certified the patient was stable before the transfer;assuming plaintiff made a prima facie case regarding his claims that he was terminated as retaliation for reporting violations under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, EMTALA or the False Claims Act, the employer established legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for his termination, and plaintiff failed to show the performance-related grounds were pretexts for retaliation; the district court did not err in striking an overlength response or in denying plaintiff's request to defer ruling on summary judgment pending further discovery.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.