Barry G. Lew, M.D. v. Kona Hospital Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A doctor sued a hospital after his staff privileges were revoked, alleging due process violations. The court affirmed summary judgment for the hospital, finding the doctor failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue and that the hospital’s hearing procedures were constitutionally adequate.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates the requirements for opposing a summary judgment motion under FRCP 56(e), including the limited utility of a verified complaint. It also clarifies the procedural due process rights afforded to a physician in hospital staff privilege termination hearings.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Dr. Barry Lew was granted probationary staff privileges at Kona Hospital. After the hospital’s Executive Committee recommended terminating his privileges, Dr. Lew filed a federal lawsuit alleging due process violations. The parties entered into a Consent Order that stipulated the procedures for an Ad Hoc Committee hearing, including the right to counsel, the right to call witnesses, and a set time for each side to present its case. The hearing was held, and the Ad Hoc Committee unanimously recommended revocation based on findings that Dr. Lew made false statements on his application, lacked professional competence, and was disruptive. An appellate panel, which Dr. Lew and his attorney chose not to attend, upheld this decision, and the hospital formally revoked his privileges. In the federal case, the defendants moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits and exhibits. In opposition, Dr. Lew relied primarily on his verified complaint, which had been drafted before the hearing occurred. Separately, Dr. Lew failed to appear for his properly noticed deposition. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and sanctioned Dr. Lew for the costs of the missed deposition.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the plaintiff raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on his due process claims, and did the district court abuse its discretion by sanctioning him for failing to appear at his deposition?
No, the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the plaintiff raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on his due process claims, and did the district court abuse its discretion by sanctioning him for failing to appear at his deposition?
Conclusion
The case serves as a key precedent on the procedural requirements for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
Legal Rule
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), a party opposing a properly supported Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu f
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sun
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A physician with a property interest in probationary hospital privileges receives