57 doctors allege contract violations in surgery center suit

By Steve Green

Thursday, April 9, 2009 | 10:58 a.m.

Fifty-seven local anesthesiologists are suing a Henderson surgery center in a wide-ranging dispute involving allegations of contract violations, ethical breaches and defamatory statements.

The anesthesiologists filed their complaint this week in Clark County District Court against Seven Hills Surgery Center LLC, owner Dr. Rudy Manthei, Promed Management Group LLC, which operates the surgery center, Promed executive Jovana Lee and Valley Anesthesiology Consultants (Beckett) PLLC.

The anesthesiologists claim Seven Hills Surgery Center violated their contracts by revoking their privileges to practice at the center when it contracted for standardized anesthesiology services with Valley Anesthesiology -- a contract that resulted from last year's hepatitis scare at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada that was linked to improper anesthesia practices.

A call seeking comment from the defendants was referred to their attorney, who could not immediately be reached for comment. Manthei is well known in the medical community. In 2008, he was named a health care advisor to Gov. Jim Gibbons and he is president of Keep Our Doctors in Nevada, which is working to maintain caps on malpractice awards.

The anesthesiologists' complaint was filed by attorneys Mark Hutchison and Jacob Reynolds of the law firm Hutchison & Steffen.

The lawsuit alleges that though the surgery center has received a 99-percent approval rating from patients, the anesthesiologists were told the decision to hire Valley Anesthesiology was "patient driven."

They claim the Seven Hills arrangement with Valley Anesthesiology includes economic benefits for Seven Hills, which they charge is a violation of ethical practices in medicine.

The anesthesiologists say the new arrangement will prevent them from working with doctors they are accustomed to working with. Those relationships, they say, are beneficial to patients since doctors and anesthesiologists understand how each other work. They say that not working with the doctors they partner with at Seven Hills will harm the anesthesiologists financially.

And they claim they were defamed when a local newspaper published a story about the new arrangement, quoting Lee as saying: "If we have 50 different surgeons with 50 procedures scheduled in one day, we could see 50 different anesthesiologists with 50 different ways of doing things. That's not what our patients need. They need continuity. That's what we're lacking. That's where errors happen.''

The implication of the quote, the anesthesiologists say, is that the plaintiffs don't conduct themselves professionally and may be contributing to the spread of disease.

The anesthesiologists also say they were defamed by Lee when she was quoted in the story as saying: "We need to make sure providers are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Patients should be speaking with their anesthesiologist before surgery just like they are their surgeon. Today, you're lucky if you see the anesthesiologist."

The implication, the plaintiffs say, is that they have not been doing what they are supposed to be doing and have not been speaking with patients.

They also complained about Lee and Manthei being quoted as saying a key factor in the outsourcing decision was the use of consistent national standards for pre-surgical testing and post-surgical management.

The implication, the plaintiffs charge, is that the plaintiff anesthesiologists are not likely to follow such standards.

The statements by Lee and Manthei, the plaintiffs say, have damaged their reputations and will cause them to lose current and future business opportunities.

The lawsuit seeks an order reinstating the anesthesiologists' privileges to practice at the center as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.