CULLMAN, Ala. – A U.S. District judge has scheduled a hearing at the request of Cullman Regional Medical Center to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed in 2022 by a former physician alleging age discrimination. The hearing is set for Oct. 23, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom V of the United States Courthouse in Huntsville.
A June 2022 proposal to change physician compensation at Cullman Regional Medical Center included a prediction about Dr. Hansel Noffsinger regarding his bonus formula.
“Noffsinger – Move to % of collections (this will make him leave),” read the attachment to Lisa Courtney’s June 6 email, “Summary Talking Points for James.” (The email is referencing James Clements, CRMC CEO.)
Courtney, then vice president of physician services, said the parenthetical predicted his reaction rather than expressing a desire for his departure.
“I noted that this change would make him leave. But, that note was not an expression of my desire for him to leave,” she said in “Declaration of Lisa Courtney.”
CRMC terminated Noffsinger’s employment June 15, 2022. He later sued, alleging age discrimination. CRMC denies discrimination and has asked the federal court to dismiss the case through summary judgment.
U.S. District Judge Harold D. Mooty III scheduled a hearing on that request for Oct. 23, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom V of the United States Courthouse in Huntsville. The Sept. 25 text order sets a hearing, without setting a deadline for a decision.
Courtney sent the talking points to Chief Financial Officer Nesha Donaldson. In her declaration, she described conversations with Donaldson and Schinley Land about the hospital’s finances before sending the proposal.
“They told me that the financials for May were looking bad and that CRMC was going to have a bad overall fiscal year, which ended on June 30, 2022,” Courtney said.
The attachment proposed changes in six clinic groups, including closing Occupational Health, moving the South clinic to the North location and changing several physicians’ compensation arrangements.
For Noffsinger, Courtney proposed replacing a bonus based on work relative value units, or RVUs, with one based on collections for his services.
“Payment based on collections ensured that CRMC was paying doctors commensurate with amounts CRMC actually received for the physicians’ work,” she said.
“Payment based on RVUs worked also required bonus payments to physicians even if payors delayed or never paid,” she said on the same page.
Courtney attributed the termination decision to documentation delays, coding problems and workplace complaints.
“The reasons we discussed for terminating Dr. Noffsinger boiled down to profitability and professionalism,” she said.
Courtney said an initial audit found overbilling by one level in seven of 10 reviewed records. She described a second audit involving 178 records.
“In 136 of those records, Dr. Noffsinger overbilled by one level,” she said.
Courtney said CRMC repaid money and incurred costs correcting charges. Noffsinger’s attorney, Allen D. Arnold, disputed the support for that repayment claim.
“Defendant provided no evidence to support Courtney’s statement that it repaid insurers,” Arnold wrote in “Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Arnold also challenged CRMC’s financial explanation using a cash-payment report produced during the lawsuit. His brief lists $527,876.99 in cash payments for Noffsinger’s services against $474,965.50 in salary and bonuses for July 2021 through June 2022. It contrasts the $52,911.49 difference with figures for three younger internal medicine physicians CRMC retained.
Courtney described the report’s contents in her deposition.
“This is just the cash that hits the bank. This doesn’t have any expenses showing for their MA’s, their salaries or anything like that,” she said.
Donaldson testified that the hospital’s reporting had changed since 2022.
“We do a report currently that compares physician salaries to cash collections, but we were not doing that back in ’22,” she said.
“We look at it by clinic. We do P&Ls by clinic,” Donaldson said on the same transcript page.
In its discovery-dispute statement, CRMC addressed whether Courtney consulted a financial report before reaching her conclusion.
“Did Ms. Courtney run a report or look at a specific revenue figure to reach that conclusion? No,” CRMC stated in its portion of the “Joint Statement for Discovery Dispute Telephone Call.”
The hospital said Courtney relied on her knowledge, training and experience concerning Noffsinger’s documentation and coding practices. It also stated, “Dr. Noffsinger’s revenues were only one factor in Ms. Courtney’s decision-making process.”
CRMC’s attorney, Robert C. Lockwood, requested dismissal in the hospital’s reply brief.
“Based upon the foregoing, CRMC requests that this Court grant summary judgment and dismiss this action, with prejudice,” Lockwood wrote in “CRMC’s Reply Brief Supporting Summary Judgment.”
The supplied docket through Sept. 25 shows the Oct. 23 hearing scheduled.
Source documents and paragraph references
Paragraph 1 begins “CULLMAN, Ala.” Each stand-alone quotation counts as a paragraph. Headlines, the subheadline and byline are not counted.
Paragraph 3: “Summary Talking Points for James,” attachment to Lisa Courtney’s June 6 email, Document 25-26, p. 2.
Paragraph 5: “Declaration of Lisa Courtney,” Document 28, p. 22.
Paragraph 7: Sept. 25 text order scheduling the Oct. 23 hearing, Document 34. No page number supplied.
Paragraph 9: “Declaration of Lisa Courtney,” Document 28, p. 21.
Paragraphs 12–13: “Declaration of Lisa Courtney,” Document 28, p. 22.
Paragraph 15: “Declaration of Lisa Courtney,” Document 28, p. 23.
Paragraph 17: “Declaration of Lisa Courtney,” Document 28, pp. 20–21.
Paragraph 19: “Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” Document 29, p. 20.
Paragraph 20: “Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” Document 29, pp. 19–20.
Paragraph 22: “Deposition of Lisa Courtney,” Document 25-50, transcript p. 90, filed p. 23.
Paragraphs 24–25: “Deposition of Nesha Donaldson,” Document 25-57, transcript p. 46, filed p. 12.
Paragraphs 27–28: “Joint Statement for Discovery Dispute Telephone Call,” CRMC’s portion, Document 33-1, p. 8.
Paragraph 30: “CRMC’s Reply Brief Supporting Summary Judgment,” Document 33, p. 10.
