Practice point: The Appellate Division reversed the motion court's finding that plaintiff's statutory retaliation claim is completely barred by collateral estoppel. The issue of whether defendant hospital terminated plaintiff doctor because she reported inadequate medical care to her supervisors, and later, the Department of Health was not at issue in the prior administrative proceedings and related article 78 proceeding, and was not necessarily decided in the prior proceedings.
In the prior proceedings it was determined that plaintiff had engaged in professional incompetence on three occasions, and that defendant did not fabricate the allegations, but there was no express or implied ruling that defendant terminated her employment on the basis of that incompetence, or whether in terminating her, defendant had impermissibly retaliated against her for whistleblowing.
Student note: While collaterel estoppel does not otherwise bar litigation of the retaliation claim, plaintiff is precluded from relitigating the three instances of incompetence found in the prior proceedings.
Case: Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hosp., NY Slip OP 06416 (1st Dep't September 12, 2017)
Here is the decision.
