The Florida Peer Review Statute provides immunity from both damages and Injunctive Relief. In Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center and Heart Institute v. Anil Desai, M.D., the Florida State Circuit Court reversed and remanded the trial court decision granting temporary injunctive relief to Dr. Desai. Unlike the Health Care Quality Immunity Act (HCQIA), Florida Statute Section 395.0191 specifically grants immunity against both monetary and injunctive relief. It states in part:


            “(7) There shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of

action for injunctive relief or damages shall arise against, any licensed

facility, its governing board or governing board members, medical staff,

or disciplinary board or against its agents, investigators, witnesses, or

employees, or against any other person, for any action arising out of or

related to carrying out the provisions of this section, absent intentional



In this case, the hospital governing board voted to deny reappointment to Dr. Desai, contrary to the recommendation of the Medical Executive Committee. During the renewal process, the hospital CEO had raised concerns regarding several incidents involving Dr. Desai, but the MEC had decided that the incidents did not warrant non-renewal of Dr. Desai’s medical staff membership and clinical privileges.


Although the by-laws provided due process procedures for Dr. Desai, including a fair hearing, Dr. Desai instead sought injunctive relief, which was granted by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and remanded, stating as follows:


            “Here, the doctor’s Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief alleged

            an action arising out of or related to the medical staff reappointment

            process…although the doctor generally alleged the Board arbitrarily,

            capriciously, fraudulently and maliciously denied his application, the

            doctor did not specifically allege or offer any evidence of intentional

            fraud sufficient to overcome the immunity provided by the statute…”