Background
The University of Kentucky initiated peer-review proceedings concerning Dr. Srinath Kamineni and issued a notice proposing to revoke his privileges at UK Medical Center. Kamineni timely requested a Fair Hearing, which UK scheduled after advising him of procedural rights including representation by counsel, presenting and examining witnesses, introducing exhibits, cross-examination, rebuttal, and an internal appeal.
Kamineni later sued for breach of contract and sought to stop the Fair Hearing. The Franklin Circuit Court initially entered a temporary restraining order but dissolved it after an evidentiary hearing and declined to issue a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals denied interlocutory relief, reasoning that Kamineni’s asserted economic and reputational injuries did not establish irreparable harm and that any injury from the hearing remained speculative. Kamineni then sought discretionary interlocutory review in the Kentucky Supreme Court under RAP 20(F).
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court denied the motion without reviewing the merits of the Court of Appeals’ ruling because Kamineni failed to demonstrate the extraordinary cause required by RAP 20(F). The Court emphasized that Kamineni sought to enjoin the same Fair Hearing he had requested and that federal law requires such a hearing process to be available for a physician’s benefit.
The Court reasoned that equity would not halt this voluntarily invoked contractual and statutory procedure. Stopping the hearing also could give Kamineni a tactical advantage by preventing UK from completing a process potentially relevant to its claim of federal liability immunity in related litigation. The Court expressed no opinion on whether UK violated its bylaws or a settlement agreement, whether Kamineni’s privileges should be revoked, whether a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank would follow, or whether UK would ultimately qualify for immunity.
The Court formally denied interlocutory relief and remanded the case to Franklin Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion and order.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court review of an interlocutory-relief decision under RAP 20(F) is discretionary and requires an exceptionally demanding showing of extraordinary cause.
- A physician who requested a federally contemplated hospital Fair Hearing could not establish extraordinary cause by later seeking equitable relief to prevent that hearing from occurring.
- The ruling does not decide the underlying contract, retaliation, discrimination, privilege-revocation, reporting, or federal-immunity issues, and the case returns to Franklin Circuit Court for further proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the difficulty of obtaining Kentucky Supreme Court intervention at the interlocutory stage, particularly when the challenged proceeding is an ordinary contractual and statutory process that the movant personally invoked. Parties seeking such relief must establish extraordinary cause, not merely identify disputed merits issues or possible downstream economic and reputational consequences.
The opinion is designated “Not to Be Published” under RAP 40(D) and is not binding precedent. Subject to RAP 41, a final unpublished Kentucky appellate opinion rendered after January 1, 2003, may be cited for consideration when no published opinion adequately addresses the argued point of law.