Bradley whyte crna

The Agreement provided that Praestantia and each of its anesthesia members were independent contractors. Bergen was the anesthesia manager. Bergen asserts that he knew Whyte was a person of color when Whyte was asked to join Praestantia. Plaintiffs dispute the assertion that Whyte was "recruited" and instead maintain that Whyte was recommended to Bergen by a mutual acquaintance and colleague, and that Bergen interviewed Whyte by telephone and was unaware of his race.

Effective January 31, , Praestantia's Operating Agreement was amended to include the professional corporations of Whyte, Cobb, and Wray. Each member owned a portion of the LLC and maintained its own malpractice insurance. Under the Amended Operating Agreement, Praestantia's Director possessed the authority to remove any member if deemed appropriate in his" sole discretion," and the sole remedy for removal was return of the member's capital contribution.

Bergen was named as Director. In November or December , Bergen decided to remove Whyte PC from membership in Praestantia, effective December 1, , and Praestantia returned plaintiffs' capital contribution. Bergen first presented Whyte with a separation agreement based on" unsatisfactory work performance and professional concerns. Bergen subsequently presented a second separation agreement "[d]ue to issues known to you. Bergen asserts that the removal was based on Whyte's deteriorating professionalism, clinical complaints, compromised patient care, lack of communication, lack of responsiveness, lapses of judgment, and complaints of sexual misconduct asserted by female hospital staff.

Whyte denies these allegations. After Whyte PC was removed from Praestantia, Bergen became aware of additional instances of explicit sexual harassment by Whyte toward several female hospital staff members. Bergen states that had he known the severity of the complaints, he would have sought Whyte PC's removal from Praestantia earlier.

Whyte denies these allegations and asserts that his race was the sole motivating factor in his removal from Praestantia. Vincent Medical Center regarding Whyte's credentialing application. The parties dispute whether Bergen provided the information that was requested. Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The materiality of a fact is determined by the substantive law on the issue. Pac, Elec. Contractors Ass'n. The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. Catrett , U. If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts which show a genuine issue for trial.

A fact issue is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Liberty Lobby, Inc. Tie court must resolve all reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact against the moving party and construe all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

However, the Ninth Circuit has refused to find a genuine issue of fact where the only evidence presented is "uncorroborated and self-serving" testimony.

Kennedy v. Applause, Inc. Plaintiffs allege race discrimination against all defendants under 42 U. Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs do not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, and that Whyte PC was removed from Praestantia membership for legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons relating to Whyte's declining performance and misconduct involving female hospital staff. Section "prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private contracts.

McCrarv , U. Firefighters Local Union No. Stotts , U. BJY Inc. Plaintiffs concede they have no direct evidence of discrimination. Plaintiffs cite no comment, either written or spoken, made by any defendant to any person that disparaged or referenced Whyte's race or color.

Further, Whyte could identify no overt discriminatory conduct by plaintiffs, and no other person or hospital staff member observed actions or heard actions that were discriminatory. Kelley Decl. A Whyte Depo. In the absence of direct evidence of discriminatory animus, plaintiffs may establish discriminatory intent under the Title VII McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting scheme. See McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Green , U. Chassman , F. Under this approach, plaintiffs bear the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Texas Pep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine , U. Lim Am. If plaintiffs present a prima facie case, the burden shifts to defendants to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for plaintiffs' removal from Praestantia.

If defendants do so, the burden shifts back to plaintiffs to show that defendants' reasons are pretextual. Davis, Bd. Simplot Co. At the same time, "purely conclusory allegations of alleged discrimination, with no concrete, relevant particulars, will not bar summary judgment.

Northwest Bell Tel. Upon careful review of the record, I find that plaintiffs fail to produce any evidence, aside from Whyte's own conclusory statements, permitting an inference that plaintiffs' removal from Praestantia membership was motived by racial animus. Notably, plaintiffs' devote the majority of their arguments to disputing the accuracy of underlying events relied on by Bergen in removing Whyte PC from Praestantia.

However, before the court considers defendants proffered non-discriminatory reasons, the initial burden rests with plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

While Whyte was a member of a protected class, was arguably qualified for his position, and suffered an adverse employment action, plaintiffs fail to produce a shred of evidence that he was treated differently from other Praestantia members, or that the circumstances surrounding his removal otherwise give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Whyte's deposition testimony and declaration are replete with conclusory allegations of unfair treatment and discrimination; however, there is an absence of factual support for his assertions. In fact, Whyte's testimony contradicts many of his allegations. For example, in his declaration Whyte contends that he was not "recruited," "befriended," or "welcomed" by any of the individual defendants, that no individual defendant lived in Newberg, and that Bergen was unaware of Whyte's race before offering him membership in Praestantia.

Whyte Decl. However, Whyte's sworn deposition testimony rebuts each of these assertions. He currently practices at Frisbie Memorial Hospital. Use our insurance check to verify if Bradley Whyte accepts your insurance. Find other locations and directions. Bradley Whyte has not yet indicated whether they offer telehealth services.

Find contact information here to make an appointment. Search Search. Nurse Anesthesiology M. Show phone number Doctors can have one or more medical licenses for different specialities in Oregon or different states. Related medical licenses for Mr. Whyte are as mentioned below:.

What is Nurse Anesthetist, Certified Registered? An affiliated hospital is a hospital where a doctor can practice and admit patients.

Affiliation usually means doctors can admit patients to a hospital. Whyte is professionally affiliated with the following hospitals in Rochester area and more:. This doctor has multiple office locations in New Hampshire and more.

See office information for details.