Covenant Health, Inc. v. The Maine Human Rights Commission

ST A TE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. CV-20-23

COVENANT HEALTH, INC.,
COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS, ST.
MARY'S REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, ST. MARY'S HEALTH
SYSTEM, DR. CHRISTOPHER BOWE,
DR. DEREK MITTLEIDER, DR. MED
KELLEY and CINDY M. BROUSSEAU, DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,

V.

THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION,
Defendant

Before the Court is Plaintiff Covenant Health Inc. et al. 's Motion for Summary
Judgment. This action is related to an underlying Complaint of Discrimination filed
with the Maine Human Rights Commission ("MHRC" or "Commission") brought
by a physician ("Dr. Jane Doe"). Dr. Doe was the subject of a professional
competence committee review and alleges that Plaintiffs unlawfully discriminated
and/or retaliated against her.

In response to the Complaint and certain discovery requests made by the
Commission, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory order confirming that Plaintiffs are
immunized from civil liability under the Maine Health Security Act ("MHSA"), 24
M.R.S. §§ 2501, et seq. and that records relating to the competence committee
review are privileged and confidential according to Section 2510-A of the MHSA
1
and 32 M.R.S. § 3296. In opposition to the Motion, the Commission argues that the
case should not be decided in favor of Plaintiffs. Rather, the Commission maintains
that judgment should be entered in its' favor instead. The parties have waived oral
argument.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if, based on the parties' statements 'of
material fact and the cited record, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the
moving pai1y is entitled to a judgment as a matter oflaw. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Levine
v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, ,r 4, 770 A.2d 653. It follows that to survive a
moving party's motion for summary judgment, the non-moving pai1y must establish
a prima facie case for each of their claims and set forth specific facts showing there
is a genuine issue of material fact. Key Trust Co. of Maine v. Nasson College, 1997
ME 145, ,r 10, 697 A.2d 408; see also M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). A fact is material if it has
the potential to affect the outcome of the suit. Id. To be considered "genuine," there
must be sufficient evidence offered to raise a factual contest requiring a fact finder
to choose between competing versions of the truth. Rainey v. Langden, 2010 ME 56,
if 23, 998 A.2d 342; Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 84, if 6, 750 A.2d 573. Fu11her, this
showing "requires more than effusive rhetoric and optimistic surmise." Hennessy v.
City of Melrose, 194 F.3d 237, 251 (1st Cir. 1999). The Court must ignore
"conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation."
Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d 231, 237 (1st Cir. 2002).

Cross motions for summary judgment "neither alter the basic Rule 56
standard, nor warrant the grant of summary judgment per se." F.R. Carroll, Inc. v.
TD Bank, N.A., 2010 ME 115, ,r 8, 8 A.3d 646 ( quoting Wightman v. Springfi'eld
Terminal Ry. Co., 100 F.3d 228, 230 (1st Cir. 1996)). "Summary judgment, when
appropriate, may be rendered against the moving pai1y." M.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

2
FACTS

The pa1iies have stipulated to the following facts. In April 2019, Dr. Doe filed
a Complaint of Discrimination against Plaintiffs alleging discrimination and/or
retaliation based on age, national origin, ancestry, race, physical/mental disability,
and whistleblower status. (Stip. S.M.F. ,r 10.) The Complaint stated that Dr. Doe is
a medical doctor employed at a hospital operated by Plaintiffs St. Mary's Regional
Medical Center and St. Mary's Health System (collectively "St. Mary's").

According to Dr. Doe's Complaint, Drs. Bowe, Mittleider, and Kelley were
medical doctors who paiiicipated in St. Mary's Medical Executive Committee. (Stip.
S.M.F. ir,r 2-4.) The Committee conducted a formal investigation and review of Dr.
Doe's practice of medicine and her fitness to practice. (Stip. S.M.F. ,r,r 2-4, 8.) As a
result of the review, the Committee issued recommendations, conclusions, and
evaluations of Dr. Doe's conduct and imposed certain conditions. (Stip. S.M.F. ,r 9.)
Dr. Doe alleges that the actions taken by Plaintiffs because of the review constitute
unlawful discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of the Maine Human Rights
Act (MHRA) and the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act. (Stip. S.M.F. ,r 11.)

In response to Dr. Doe's Complaint, the Commission initiated an investigation
and has sought information and records from Plaintiffs relating to the Committee's
investigation, review, and recommendations. (Stip. S.M.F. ,r 13.) Plaintiffs then
brought this action and filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that the
Maine Health Security Act immunizes them from all civil liability, including being
subject to an administrative proceeding initiated by the Commission. Further,
Plaintiffs contend that the documents and information relating to Plaintiffs'

3
professional competence review of Dr. Doe are privileged and protected from
disclosure by Section 2510-A of the MHSA and 32 M.R.S. § 3296.

DISCUSSION

I. Immunity from Civil Liability Under the Maine Health Security Act
(24 M.R.S. § 2511)

Plaintiffs contend that 24 M.R.S. § 2511 grants them absolute immunity and
prevents the Commission from continuing its investigation into Dr. Doe's
professional competence review. The court analyzes Plaintiffs' argument in two
parts: first, are the Plaintiffs immune from civil liability relating to their participation
in the review? And second, if Plaintiffs are immune from civil liability, how does
their immunity impact the Commission's investigation?

A. Are Plaintiffs immune from civil liability relating to their
participation in Dr. Doe's professional competence review?

Plaintiffs' motion asks the court to declare them immune from civil liability
and investigation under Section 2511 of the MHSA. Section 2511 provides:

Any person acting without malice, any physician, podiatrist, healthcare
provider, health care entity or professional society, any member of a
professional competence committee or professional review committee, any
board or appropriate authority and any entity required to report under this
chapter are immune from civil liability:
1. Reporting. For making any report or other information available to any
board, appropriate authority, professional competence committee or
professional review committee pursuant to law.
2. Assisting in preparation. For assisting in the origination, investigation or
preparation of the report or information described in subsection 1; or
3. Assisting in duties. For assisting the board, authority or committee in
can-ying out any of its duties or functions provided by law.

4
Thus, to determine whether the civil liability provided in Section 2511 applies
to Plaintiffs, the Court must determine whether: 1) Plaintiffs work in an occupation
or role delineated by Section 2511, and 2) Plaintiffs' actions fall under one of the
acts described by Section 2511. If both questions are answered affirmatively, then
Plaintiffs are covered by the MHSA's immunity provision.

Dr. Doe's Complaint of Discrimination alleges facts that demonstrate each
Plaintiff is an eligible individual or entity under Section 2511. Specifically, 24
M.R.S. § 2502(3) defines a "physician" as "any natural person authorized by law to
practice medicine, osteopathic medicine or veterinary medicine within this State."
Based on Dr. Doe's Complaint, Plaintiffs Bowe, Mittleider, and Kelley are all
medical doctors in the State of Maine. (Stip. S.M.F. iJiI 2-4.) Additionally, these three
plaintiffs are also all members of a "professional review committee", and "assisted
in performing professional competence review activities" as defined in 24 M.R.S. §
2502(4). (Stip. S.M.F. iii! 2-5.) 1 Likewise, the remaining named entities, St. Mary's
Regional Medical Center and St. Mary's Health System, and their parent companies
Covenant Health, Inc. and Covenant Health Systems, qualify as health care entities
or health care providers covered by Section 2511. See 24 M.R.S. §§ 2502(1-D),

1
24 M.R.S. §§ 2502(4), 2502(4A) broadly define individuals who participate in a ··professional competence
committee" and a "professional review committee":

"Professional competence committee" means any of the following when engaging in professional
competence review activity:
A. A health care entity;
B. An individual or group, such as a medical staff officer, department or committee, to which a health care
entity delegates responsibility for professional competence review activity;
C. Entities and persons, including contractors, consultants, attorneys and staff, who assist in performing
professional competence review activities; or
D. Joint committees of2 or more health care entities.

"Prof'essi9nal rcv il!w committee" means a committee of health care practitioners formed by a professional
society for the purpose of identifying and working with health professi ona ls who are disabled or impaired by
virtue of physical or mental infirmity or by the misuse of alcohol or drugs, as long as the committee operates
pursuant to protocols approved by the various licensing boards that license the health professionals the
committee serves.

5
2502(2); (Stip. S.M.F. ,r,r 6-7.) Thus, each named Plaintiff is eligible for the
immunity provided according to 24 M.R.S. § 2511, depending on the nature of the
conduct or activity in question.

Similarly, Plaintiffs were engaging in activities covered under Section 2511
when participating in St. Mary's Medical Executive Committee. As enumerated
above, Section 2511 's three subsections establish the categories of conduct engaged
in while serving on a professional competence committee and warranting immunity
under the statute: 1) repotiing, 2) assisting in preparation, and 3) assisting in duties.
24 M.R.S. § 2511. Dr. Doe's Complaint alleges that Drs. Bowe, Mittleider, and
Kelley all participated in the Medical Executive Committee review of her practice
of medicine and fitness to practice. (Stip. S.M.F. ,r,r 2-4, 8.) Dr. Doe fu1iher alleges
that Drs. Bowe, Mittleider, and Kelley prepared a formal report regarding her
practice of medicine. (Stip. S.M.F. ir,r 8-9.) These activities are precisely the kinds
of activities for which immunity is provided according to Section 2511. Likewise,
Plaintiff Brousseau reported a complaint against Dr. Doe regarding the timeliness of
her care to a patient, resulting in the professional competence review, and which
constitutes "assisting in the duties" of the Medical Executive Committee's review.
(Stip. S.M.F. ,r 5.)

Because Plaintiffs occupy the roles covered by Section 2511 and engaged in
the types of conduct covered by Section 2511, they are immune from civil liability.
The court must now turn to whether Plaintiffs' immunity from civil liability also
renders them immune from the Commission's investigation.

6
B. Does immunity from civil liability under 24 M.R.S. § 2511 prevent the
Commission's investigation?

Because they are immune from civil liability regarding their participation in
Dr. Doe's professional competence review, the Plaintiffs argue that it necessarily
follows that they cannot be forced to participate in the Commission's investigative
process. Additionally, Plaintiffs assert in their Complaint that the Commission's
investigation is merely "an eff01i to impose civil liability" because a Commission
investigation is a necessary precursor to the Commission's ability to file a formal
civil action in Maine Superior Court. See 5 M.R.S. § 4612. 2

The MHRA, originally enacted in 1971, is meant to have broad coverage 3 and
states that "[t]o protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is declared to be the
policy of this State to keep continually in review all practices infringing on the basic
human right to life with dignity, and the causes of these practices, so that corrective
measures may, where possible, be promptly recommended and implemented." 5
M.R.S. § 4552. Considering this purpose, the MHRA created the Commission and
specified its powers and duties. It provides:

The commission has the duty of investigating all conditions and practices
within the State which allegedly detract from the enjoyment, by each
inhabitant of the State, of full human rights and personal dignity. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, it has the duty of investigating all
fonns ofinvidious discrimination, whether carried out legally or illegally, and
whether by public agencies or private persons. Based on its investigations, it
has the further duty to recommend measures calculated to promote the full

2
5 M.R. . § 4612 provides the MHRC with the opportunity to com mence a civil acti on by the commission if it finds
reasonable grounds to believe that unlawful discrimination has occu1Tccl. The complaint and evidence collected during
the investigation, other than that designated as confidential, becomes a matter of public record at the conclusion of the
investigation ofthe complaint, prior lo a determination by the commission . 5 M.R.S. § 4612(1)(8).
3
"The legislative history of the Maine Act indicates that it was meant to have very broad coverage." Maine Human
Rights Comm 'n v. United Papenvorkers Int'/ Union, 383 A.2d 369, 373 (Me. 1978).

7
enjoyment of human rights and personal dignity by all the inhabitants of this
State.
5 M.R.S. § 4566 (emphasis added). Italicized above, and crucial to this case, is the
declaration that the Commission is tasked with investigating both legal and illegal
forms of discrimination. Id. While Plaintiffs describe the purpose of a Commission
investigation narrowly, as a precursor to a civil action, the Commission views its
role more broadly. 4 Specifically, the Commission points to its task of investigating
both legal and illegal forms of discrimination to justify its investigation, despite
Plaintiffs' immunity from civil liability. The court agrees with the Commission's
reading of the MHRA, finding that it unambiguously assigns the Commission a
broader role in protecting human rights than merely acting as one of many check­
points in pursuit of civil liability.

Likewise, the Commission cites Tomer v. Me. Human Rights Comm 'n., to
demonstrate that an investigation conducted by it does not affect the parties' legal
rights, duties, or privileges, and thus does not impose "civil liability." In Tomer, the
Commission began investigating, and eventually dismissed, the appellee' s
complaint after finding it lacked jurisdiction over the internal tribal matters of the
Penobscot Nation. 2008 ME 190, ~ 2, 962 A.2d 335. The appellee filed his appeal
pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. SOC, under which a final agency action may be challenged.
The Law Comi held, however, that the Commission's actions were not appealable
as "final agency action" because the Commission's process did not affect the parties'
legal rights, duties, or privileges." Id. ~ 14. Instead, the Court viewed the
Commission's role as primarily that of an "investigator and conciliator." Id. ~ 12.

4
The Maine Human Rights Act is unambiguous. Nevertheless, were the Court to find MHRA ambiguous in its grant
of authority, it would look to legislative intent to determine the statute's proper application. An agency's interpretation
of a statute within its area of expertise is provided deference unless it is unreasonable. Fuhrmann v. Staples q[(ice
Superstore East, Inc., 2012 ME 135, ~~29-30, 58 A.3d 1083 ("We have previously deferred to the [MHRC's] expertise
and applied its interpretation where we have found the Ml-lRA's language to be ambiguous.")

8
Applying the Law Court's reasoning m Tomer, the court acknowledges the
Commission's broad mandate to protect Mainer's human rights and to investigate
all forms of discrimination, whether that investigation exists in preparation for
litigation or not.

Finally, the Commission argues that it only considers civil liability as part of
its "reasonable grounds" determination, in which its preliminary investigation aims
to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe unlawful
discrimination has occurred. See 5 M.R.S. § 4612(1)(8). In the Commission's view,
the reasonable grounds standard exists to establish whether, through the preliminary
investigation, sufficient admissible evidence could be or has been discovered to form
a reasonable, though not definitive, belief that unlawful discrimination occurred.
(Def. 's Opp'n to Pl. 's Mot. Summ. J. 5.)

Conversely, Plaintiffs asse11 that the Commission's reliance on Tomer is
misplaced. Plaintiffs place themselves in the position occupied by the Penobscot
Nation. Like the recognized tribe, Plaintiffs assert that the Commission lacks
jurisdiction over hospitals, at least in the narrow situation of conducting professional
competence reviews. In the court's opinion, the statutory basis for the Commission's
dismissal of Tomer's claims, and the statutory basis Plaintiffs assert renders them
immune from the Commission's investigation, are distinguishable. In Tomer, the
Commission had previously dismissed the complainant's case on their own accord,
and pursuant to 30 M.R.S. § 6206(1). The basis for the Commission's dismissal was
that "internal tribal matters ... shall not be subject to regulation by the State." 30
M.R.S. § 6206(1 ). A statute preventing all internal tribal matters from regulation of
any kind, is intuitively broader in application than the statute providing immunity to
civil liability under the MHSA. See 24 M.R.S. § 2511. Therefore, despite Plaintiffs'

9
immunity from civil liability relating to the Review, that immunity does not extend
to the preliminary investigation and discovery of materials by the Commission.

II. Confidentiality of Professional Review Records Under 24 M.R.S. §
2510-A and 32 M.R.S. § 3296

In addition to immunity from civil liability, Plaintiffs assert that records
stemming from professional competence reviews, such as Dr. Doe's Review
currently under investigation by the MHRC, are confidential under 24 M.R.S. §
2510-A and 32 M.R.S. § 3296 and therefore protected from disclosure.
a. Does 24 M.R.S. § 2510-A render records relating to Dr. Doe's
professional competence review confidential?

According to Section 2510-A:

Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, all professional competence
review records are privileged and confidential and are not subject to
discovery, subpoena or other means of legal compulsion for their release to
any person or entity and are not admissible as evidence in any civil, judicial,
or administrative proceeding.
24 M.R.S. § 2510-A. The MI-ISA broadly defines "professional competence review
records" to include "the minutes, files, notes, records, reports, statements,
memoranda, data bases, proceedings, findings and work product prepared at the
request of or generated by a professional competence review committee relating to
professional competence review activity." 24 M.R.S. § 2502(8). Therefore, barring
an exception, records stemming from the Review would be confidential and non­
discoverable by the Commission. Neve11heless, an exception to the statute exists.

Among the exceptions to Section 2510-A are "proceedings in which a
physician contests an adverse professional review action against that physician" 24
M.R.S. § 251 O-A(2). Here, a physician (Dr. Doe) has filed a complaint with the
Commission seeking an investigation into whether certain conditions imposed on

10
her at work were the result of various forms of discrimination that allegedly occurred
during the Review. In the court's view, the Commission's investigation into
Plaintiffs' Review qualifies as a physician contesting an adverse professional review
and falls under the exception to Section 2510-A' s confidentiality provision.

Instead, Plaintiffs argue that the above exception does not apply because Dr.
Doe "has not challenged the merits of a professional competence review through the
MHRC process." (Pl. 's Reply to Def. 's Opp. at 4.) Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Doe
asked the Commission to independently investigate Plaintiffs' conduct which is
different than "contest[ing] a professional competence review." Plaintiffs have made
a distinction without a difference. In the State of Maine, the first step in an
employment discrimination suit is to file a complaint with the Commission. Because
Plaintiffs are immune from civil liability according to 24 M.R.S. § 2511, the
Commission's investigatory process provides Dr. Doe with her only available
opportunity to contest the alleged discrimination that occurred during her
competence review. Further, without access to records from the Review, it is
impossible for Dr. Doe or the Commission to know exactly what occurred during
the process, and to then challenge the Review on the merits as suggested by
Plaintiffs. 5

Finally, in addition to Section 2510-A's exception, the MHSA also provides
that documents relating to professional competence reviews may be provided to a

5
The degree of confidentiality Plaintiffs claim is also disfavored by federal coutts. In Kaplan v. Blue Hill Iv/em. /-/asp..
the District Coutt favorably cited Virmani v. Novant Health, Inc., 259 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2001) when declining to
recognize a medical peer review privilege in a discrimination action even though the records were arguably privileged
under state law. The District Court acknowledged that the privilege is designed to promote candor in the peer review
process but noted that a plaintiff in a discrimination case "advances important public interests in addition to his
personal interests." Id Another factor weighing in favor of federal courts declining to apply Maine's privilege is the
avai lab ii ity of a confidentiality order, and the redaction of personally identifiable information regarding any patients.
See Id: Ali v. Long Creek Youth Dev. Ctr., No 2:18-cv-001090-JAW, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10543, at *11 n.2 (D.
Me. Jan. 21, 2019).

11
government agency without waiving the privilege against disclosure. 24 M.R.S. §
251 O(B)(l ). Thus, providing the requested documents to the MHRC would not
otherwise waive their confidentiality. Likewise, the MHRA also contains a
prov1s1on that make it plain that documents that are otherwise designated
confidential will remain confidential, and not become public records, when provided
to the Commission. 5 M.R.S. § 4612((1-A)(I). The applicable exception to Section
2510-A' s confidentiality for proceedings contesting adverse professional review
actions, paired with the maintenance of the privilege even if provided to the
Commission, as well as the confidentiality provision in the MHRA itself, balances
the personal and public interest in preventing and remedying invidious
discrimination with the need for candor in reviewing physician competence.
Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot avoid disclosing relevant documents to the Commission
on the basis of 24 M.R.S. § 2510-A.

b. Are Plaintiffs' professional competence review records protected
from disclosure under 32 M.R.S. § 3296?

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that according to 32 M.R.S. § 3296, medical staff
review documents are confidential and privileged against discovery "when the
reviews are required by state or federal law, rule, or as a condition of accreditation
by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals or the American Osteopathic
Association Committee on Hospital Accreditation or are conducted under the
auspices of the state or county professional society to which the physician belongs."
32 M.R.S. § 3296. While it is entirely possible that Plaintiffs' Medical Executive
Commission Review was required by state or federal law, such facts were not
included in the Stipulated Statement of Material Facts. (See Stip. S.M.F.) Rather,
Plaintiffs cite to Agerow v. Weisberg, in which the Law Court noted that the MI-ISA
requires hospitals to establish at least one professional competence committee. 2018

12
ME 140, ~ 19, 195 A.3d 121 O; see also 24 M.R.S. § 2503(A). Thus, while the
existence of the committee is required by Maine law, there is no factual basis for the
Court to conclude Dr. Doe's competence review itself was required by state or
federal law, or an accreditation or professional organization.

Furthermore, even assuming the documents are subject to 32 M.R.S. § 3296,
Maine law prioritizes statutes dealing with a subject specifically over another statute
dealing with the same subject generally . Butler v. Killoran, 1998 ME 14 7, ~ 11, 714
A.2d 129. Because 24 M.R.S. § 2510-A specifically deals with the confidentiality of
documents relating to physician competence reviews and exceptions thereto, those
statutes should be given priority over statutes dealing generally with Maine's Board
of Licensure in Medicine. Indeedi from the court's perspective, the provisions of 32
M.R.S. § 3296 were designed to work in tandem with the provisions of 24 M.R.S .
§§ 2510 and 2510-A, not to supplant or take precedence over them. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment in the form of a declaration
relieving them of the responsibility to produce the requested documents to the
Commission in furtherance of the investigation under the MHRA, nor are the
Plaintiffs entitled to an order enjoining the Commission's investigation. Further,
based on the stipulated facts, the Commission has requested the court to instead enter
judgment in its favor. Because there are no disputes of material fact, and the court
has already determined that the Plaintiffs must comply with the Commission's
investigation, the cou1i grants summary judgment in favor of the Commission.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on the basis that (1) 24 M.R.S.
§ 2511 provides medical providers and physicians with absolute immunity regarding
their participation in professional competence reviews, and (2) records stemming
from a professional competence review are confidential according to 24 M.R.S. §

13
251 O(A) and 32 M.R.S. § 3296. Although the Plaintiffs have immunity from civil
liability, that immunity does not exempt them from the Commission's investigatory
process.

The entry is:

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Summary
judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

The Clerk is requested to enter this Order on the docket for this case by
/

incorporating it by reference. M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Dated: August 13, 2021
--~'!ff)j;­\.J
/ 7 7 - ­

William R. Stokes
Justice, Maine Superior Court

I
Entered on the docket I({) j '.2 o 2 \

14
COVENANT HEALTH INC - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss.
Attorney for: COVENANT HEALTH INC Docket No AUGSC-CV-2020-00023
DAVID A STROCK - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600 DOCKET RECORD
PORTLAND ME 04101

Attorney for: COVENANT HEALTH INC
JONATHAN RUE - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS
DAVID A STROCK - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

Attorney for: COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS
JONATHAN RUE - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
DAVID A STROCK - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

Attorney for: ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
JONATHAN RUE - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

ST MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: ST MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM
DAVID A STROCK - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

Attorney for: ST MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM
JONATHAN RUE - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

Page 1 of 7 Printed on: OB/16/2021
AUGSC-CV-2020-00023
DOCKET RECORD
CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR
DAVID A STROCK - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

Attorney for: CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR
JONATHAN RUE - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

DEREK MITTLEIDER DR - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: DEREK MITTLEIDER DR
DAVID A STROCK - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

Attorney for: DEREK MITTLEIDER DR
JONATHAN RUE - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

MED KELLEY DR - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: MED KELLEY DR
DAVID A STROCK - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

Attorney for: MED KELLEY DR
JONATHAN RUE - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

CINDY M BROUSSEAU - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: CINDY M BROUSSEAU
DAVID A STROCK - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
PORTLAND ME 04101

Attorney for: CINDY M BROUSSEAU
JONATHAN RUE - RETAINED
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE STE 600
Page 2 of 7 Printed on: 08/16/2021
AUGSC-CV-2020-00023
DOCKET RECORD

PORTLAND ME 04101

vs
THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
BARBARA ARCHER HIRSCH - RETAINED
MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
51 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA ME 04333-0051

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Filing Date: 02/14/2020

Docket Events:
02/18/2020 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 02/14/2020

02/18/2020 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH INC
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK

02/18/2020 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK

02/18/2020 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH INC
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

02/18/2020 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

02/18/2020 Party(s): ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK

02/18/2020 Party(s): ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

02/18/2020 Party(s): ST MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK

02/18/2020 Party(s): ST MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

02/18/2020 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Page 3 of 7 Printed on: 08/16/2021
AUGSC-CV-2020-00023
DOCKET RECORD

Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK

02/18/2020 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

02/18/2020 Party(s): DEREK MITTLEIDER DR
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK

02/18/2020 Party(s): DEREK MITTLEIDER DR
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

02/18/2020 Party(s): MED KELLEY DR
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK

02/18/2020 Party(s): MED KELLEY DR
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

02/18/2020 Party(s): CINDY M BROUSSEAU
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK

02/18/2020 Party(s): CINDY M BROUSSEAU
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/14/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

02/18/2020 Party(s): THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 02/14/2020
NOT SERVED

03/18/2020 Party(s): THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACK OF RECEIPT OF SUMM/COMP SERVED ON 03/06/2020
ACCELTANCE OF SERVICE FOR MHRC

03/18/2020 Party(s): THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACK OF RECEIPT OF SUMM/COMP FILED ON 03/16/2020

03/30/2020 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 03/30/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT . COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL

03/30/2020 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 11/30/2020

03/30/2020 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 03/30/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE

03/30/2020 Party(s): THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 03/23/2020
Page 4 of 7 Printed on: 08/16/2021
AUGSC-CV-2020-00023
DOCKET RECORD

Defendant's Attorney: BARBARA ARCHER HIRSCH

04/08/2020 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH INC,COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS,ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,ST
MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM,CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR,DEREK MITTLEIDER DR,MED KELLEY DR,CINDY M
BROUSSEAU
SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON 04/07/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: JONATHAN RUE

04/30/2020 Party(s): THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 03/23/2020
Defendant's Attorney: BARBARA ARCHER HIRSCH

04/30/2020 Party(s): THE MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER TO AMENDED PLEADING FILED ON 04/27/2020
Defendant's Attorney: BARBARA ARCHER HIRSCH

08/13/2020 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH INC,COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS,ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,ST
MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM,CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR,DEREK MITTLEIDER DR,MED KELLEY DR,CINDY M
BROUSSEAU
ORDER - ORDER FAIL FILE ADR NOTICE ENTERED ON 08/11/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL

08/28/2020 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH INC
ADR - NOTICE OF ADR PROCESS/NEUTRAL FILED ON 08/27/2020
ADR WILL BE WITH JERRY CROUTER ON 9/17/20

09/29/2020 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER FILED ON 09/24/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE

09/29/2020 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER UNRESOLVED ON 09/17/2020

10/02/2020 ORDER - REPORT OF ADR CONF/ORDER ENTERED ON 10/01/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL

01/04/2021 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH INC,COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS,ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,ST
MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM,CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR,DEREK MITTLEIDER DR,MED KELLEY DR,CINDY M
BROUSSEAU
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 12/30/2020
Plaintiff's Attorney: DAVID A STROCK
TO ENLARGE SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

01/04/2021 Party(s): COVENANT HEALTH INC,COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS,ST MARYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,ST
MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM,CHRISTOPHER BOWE DR,DEREK MITTLEIDER DR,MED KELLEY DR,CINDY M
BROUSSEAU
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 01/04/2021
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL DEADLINE FOR
FILING MOTIONS EXCEPT MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE EXTENDED TO 1/11/21

Page 5 of 7 Printed on: 08/16/2021