Reported / Citable
Background
Dr. Hannah Chung, a breast radiologist formerly employed by MD Anderson, alleged that her department chair subjected her to adverse performance measures, including a focused professional practice evaluation, and later declined to renew her faculty appointment. Chung resigned while on medical leave after accepting a position at the University of Colorado.
After her resignation, Evelyn Starr-High, MD Anderson’s Director of Medical Staff and Credentialing Services, submitted a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank stating that Chung had surrendered clinical privileges while under investigation and resigned before recommended proctoring began. Chung alleged the report was false, caused Colorado to withdraw its offer, and harmed her ability to obtain comparable work. She sought damages and a name-clearing hearing under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Starr-High’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied Chung leave to file a proposed second amended complaint as futile. Chung had already dismissed MD Anderson, leaving Starr-High as the sole defendant.
An adverse Data Bank report, even if false, did not plausibly establish a deprivation of a protected liberty interest on the pleaded facts. Under Fifth Circuit law, state action infringes a liberty interest in pursuing a profession only when it effectively forecloses the plaintiff from working in that field. Chung alleged that she lost the Colorado position and had difficulty finding comparable research work, but also alleged that she continued practicing breast imaging and medicine. Reputational harm and diminished employment prospects were insufficient. Her name-clearing claim likewise failed because stigma alone does not state a due-process claim without an independent protected-interest deprivation. Starr-High was also entitled to qualified immunity because Chung did not show clearly established law making Starr-High’s particular conduct unlawful or plausibly allege that she had authority to provide a hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A negative National Practitioner Data Bank report does not itself establish a Fourteenth Amendment liberty deprivation.
- A professional must plead effective foreclosure from the profession, not merely lost opportunities, reduced prestige, or more difficulty obtaining work.
- A name-clearing hearing claim requires stigma plus an independent constitutional deprivation.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Fifth Circuit’s demanding “complete foreclosure” standard to alleged harms from an adverse Data Bank report. Physicians alleging that such reports damaged their careers must show more than the loss of a particular job or comparable employment opportunities.
The ruling also underscores that individual-capacity due-process claims require specific allegations connecting the official to the alleged deprivation and clearly established law governing that official’s conduct.