Dr. David Ostad

Appellants Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) and Dr. Alan Seyfer ("Seyer") appeal following a jury award in favor of Dr. David Ostad ("Ostad").
...
Ostad, a former OHSU resident who worked under Seyfer, alleged that his termination from the residency program was motivated by Seyfer's retaliation against him for questioning Seyfer's billing practices.
...
Ostad began a residency in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Division of OHSU, with a one-year contract subject to renewal for a second year.Roughly two months into Ostad's rotation with Seyfer, Seyfer wrote Ostad a letter criticizing his performance.
...
Over the next few months, Ostad was given several letters criticizing his performance.
...
After receiving a final letter describing Ostad's deficiencies regarding treatment of his patients, Ostad requested a hearing, as was his right under OHSU regulations.
...
At the hearing, Ostad presented no evidence about Seyfer's allegedly improper billing practices.
...
The panel's Opinion and Order made several factual findings and recommended that Ostad be terminated.Consistent with the panel's recommendation, OHSU's chief administrator terminated Ostad's residency.Ostad filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Seyer and OHSU had violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.The jury returned a verdict against Seyfer and OHSU concluding that Ostad proved that the defendants had retaliated against him for exercising his free speech rights.
...
The jury also found that OHSU and Seyfer failed to prove that Ostad would have been terminated from OHSU's plastic surgery program for other reasons even in the absence of his protected speech activity.
...
OHSU and Seyfer contend that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Ostad failed to produce sufficient evidence that the exercise of his right to free speech played a role in his termination.
...
Accordingly, the Court was left to determine whether the jury properly could have found that Ostad's protected speech played a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to terminate his residency.
...
The jury had evidence that Seyfer threatened Ostad for challenging the billing practices; that Seyfer wrote a number of letters that laid the groundwork for, and initiated the disciplinary hearings that resulted in his termination; that the Hearing board relied on Seyfer's expertise and testimony to reach the decision to terminate; and that Ostad was prevented from adducing evidence to rebut Seyfer's conclusions about his performance.
...
The jury had evidence that Seyfer threatened Ostad for challenging the billing practices; that Seyfer wrote a number of letters that laid the groundwork for, and initiated the disciplinary hearings that resulted in his termination; that the Hearing board relied on Seyfer's expertise and testimony to reach the decision to terminate; and that Ostad was prevented from adducing evidence to rebut Seyfer's conclusions about his performance.
...
In addition, assuming arguendo, that OHSU's hearing committee did not share Seyfer's improper motives in terminating Ostad, Gilbrook indicates that Seyfer properly may be held liable.