James Andersen//August 25, 2026//
Listen to this article
Summary
- The 6th Circuit upheld summary judgment for a hospital that suspended a physician’s clinical privileges.
- The court found the fitness-for-duty psychiatric evaluation was lawful under the ADA because it was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- Documented concerns about the physician’s performance, patient assignments and workplace conduct provided a reasonable basis for the evaluation.
- The court also rejected the physician’s ADA retaliation claim, finding that refusing the psychiatric evaluation was not protected activity.
A hospital’s decision to condition the reinstatement of a physician’s suspended clinical privileges on a fitness-for-duty evaluation did not amount to an unlawful medical inquiry under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held
The defendant hospital suspended the plaintiff physician and conditioned his reinstatement on a fitness-for-duty evaluation. The plaintiff sued, alleging a violation of state and federal law
A district court granted summary judgment to the hospital and the 6th Circuit upheld the decision
“The combination of documented performance shortfalls and behavioral red flags thus gave the [hospital’s] Executive Committee reasonable grounds to question both whether [the plaintiff] was ‘still capable of performing his job,’ Judge Whitney D. Hermandorfer wrote. “Given the nature of these concerns, the Executive Committee reasonably sought to rule out underlying impairments related to substance abuse or mental health that could be hindering [the plaintiff’s] fitness to practice.”
The 12-page decision is Robitaille v. Trinity Health Grand Rapids; MiLW No. 01-110947. Hermandorfer was joined on the panel by Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and John B. Nalbandian
Holland attorneys Bradley K. Glazier and Robert M. Howard of Cunningham Dalman represented the plaintiff. Attorneys David A. French, Larry R. Jensen and Kathryn E. Jones of Troy firm Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman represented the defendant
None of them responded to a request for comment before deadline
Job performance concerns
The plaintiff joined the hospital in 2022 on a three-year contract. In 2023, he raised concerns about patient safety during hospital computer-system outages
After refusing to step outside during a meeting where he again voiced those concerns, the plaintiff’s conduct was referred to the hospital’s HR department. A review by the HR department and the hospital’s Practitioner Excellence Committee found that his actions fell short of the hospital’s expectations
Over the following months, hospital staff expressed concern about the plaintiff’s performance and conduct. They observed that he declined certain patient assignments, became guarded, uncommunicative and paranoid, and appeared reluctant to handle more complex cases
After an extended period of concerning behavior, the plaintiff’s clinical privileges were suspended in February 2024. The suspension was upheld by the hospital’s executive committee. The executive committee further conditioned any reconsideration of the plaintiff’s suspension on a fitness-for-duty examination that included a forensic psychiatric evaluation and drug testing
The plaintiff took the drug test, which came back negative. But he remained suspended after he refused the psychiatric evaluation. He submitted an application for reappointment in August 2024, but was denied without completion of the evaluation. He appealed the decision, but the hospital ultimately declined to renew his contract when it expired
The plaintiff subsequently obtained a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and initiated a suit, asserting claims under the ADA and state law
A district court granted summary judgment to the hospital on the ADA claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. The plaintiff appealed
Evaluation found lawful
The 6th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, affirming summary judgment for the hospital
The plaintiff claimed that the hospital violated the ADA in two ways: the fitness-for-duty examination was a prohibited medical inquiry and the hospital unlawfully retaliated against him when he refused the psychiatric test
The 6th Circuit rejected those claims, finding the hospital’s executive committee
had a reasonable basis to require the psychiatric evaluation. The panel also noted that the ADA expressly excludes drug testing from the definition of a medical examination, leaving the psychiatric evaluation as the primary focus of its analysis
“The clinical shortcomings … presented — [the plaintiff’s] hesitation to perform routine tasks, avoidance of higher-risk patients, and inability to handle the standard caseload — could all cause a reasonable person to question whether [the plaintiff] was “still capable of performing his job,” Hermandorfer wrote. “The decision to require the medical examination was therefore both ‘job-related and consistent with business necessity.’”
The plaintiff argued that the trial court’s decision was based on accepting some allegations presented in a report as true. He also argued that the district court erred by relying on a transcript from the hospital’s peer-review appeals process, because, according to the plaintiff, state law restricts the use of such records in litigation
The panel rejected both arguments. First, the panel said it was not relying on the truth of the allegations themselves, but rather on whether the Executive Committee reasonably believed a medical examination was warranted. The panel also found no error in the district court’s consideration of the peer-review transcript, concluding that the plaintiff had not shown Michigan law barred its use in this case
The panel also rejected the plaintiff’s ADA retaliation claim, finding that he failed to engage in protected activity – the first element needed to establish a retaliation claim
“He asserts that he had ‘a reasonable belief that [the defendant] acted unlawfully’ for the same reasons his medical-examination claim should survive,” Hermandorfer wrote. “So, he argues that refusing to take the psychiatric examination was per se protected activity. But, as discussed, [the hospital’s] request did not violate the ADA, and [the plaintiff] offers no other arguments that his opposition was reasonable and grounded in good faith.”
In addition to upholding the grant of summary judgment, the panel affirmed the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law wrongful discharge claim
Related Articles
News Stories
- Hospital’s fitness-for-duty exam survives ADA challenge
- NLRB shifts noncompete stance
- Title IX does not protect applicants living abroad
- Excessive attorney fee request requires substantial reduction
- Michigan Supreme Court overturns med/mal timing precedent
- Regular use of uninsured vehicle establishes constructive ownership
- TCPA claim fails without evidence linking defendants to fundraising texts
- Expert testimony on allegedly defective diesel fuel pumps survives reliability challenge
Special Features
Empowering Women 2026
Listen to this article Welcome to our fourth annual Empowering Women list, a program is designed to […]
Photos: Celebrating Legal Innovation
Legal luminaries came together for Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s inaugural Legal Innovation Summit on […]
Most Important Opinions January – June 2026
A compilation of the Most Important Opinions in Lawyers Weekly from January through June
Why Michigan Lawyers Weekly Is proud to endorse Best Places to Work in Law Firms
At Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, our mission has always been to serve the legal community with trust[…]
2026 Annual Directory of Michigan’s Largest Law Firms
Michigan Lawyers Weekly is pleased to present the 2026 survey of Michigan’s Largest Law Firms. Our[…]
In the Lead: Up & Coming Law Firms 2026
Welcome to our second annual list of Up & Coming law firms. We are spotlighting firms that were laun[…]
Unsung Legal Heroes 2025
Lawyers Weekly spotlights Michigan’s behind-the-scenes legal professionals
Michigan’s Go To Lawyers for Employment Law 2025
Michigan Lawyers Weekly is pleased to present the next group of honorees in our program recognizing […]
News Elsewhere
- Alex Jones gets Sandy Hook family’s Texas verdict reduced on appeal
- Teen drops suit against Meta, Google, Snap ahead of trial
- Harvard to pay $53M to settle lawsuits over theft of body parts
- Disney, ABC sue US regulator over threats to broadcast licenses
- Florida man told ChatGPT he’d murder his ex. OpenAI alerted the FBI
- Investors sue Selena Gomez for alleged fraud over mental-health start-up
- Trial set in novel challenge to Delaware prison pepper spray practices
- Judge blocks U.S. Postal Service from restricting mail-in voting
- R.I. woman says Flock camera misidentified her, leading to arrest
- Lawsuit details Metro station ordeal of disabled man trapped for 6 days
- Elon Musk’s DOGE made big errors in claims of government savings, GAO finds
- U.S. senator urges regulators to probe Wall Street banks over Epstein accounts
Legal Tech
- Why AI is no longer optional for litigation teams
- How law firms win attorney buy-in on cybersecurity policies
- Brazil court sanctions lawyers for hidden AI prompt in pleading
