JOINT COMMISSION PROPOSES STANDARDS FOR DISRUPTIVE PHYSICIANS
The Joint Commission (which has always been the informal name for the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and which will now be its formal name) has proposed disruptive behavior standards for Joint Commission accreditation, which it intends to apply in early 2007.
The new standard…
“The U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that Lewistown Hospital was not entitled to recover the legal costs incurred fighting the allegations of Dr. Alan D. Gordon under the Sherman Act because the hospital could not show the claims brought by the ophthalmologist were frivolous or unreasonable, or brought in…
Cowett v. TCH Pediatrics Inc. seems to endorse bad faith peer review, but a closer examination of the opinion should reveal a significant distinction between bad faith peer review and peer review involving legitimate peer review concerns in situations which also include bad faith motivations among the peer review entities.
After following the fair hearing…
A federal district court in Texas has ruled that Dr. Poliner can either accept a reduced damages award of $22 million or face a new trial. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a motion by Presbyterian Hospital Dallas (Texas Health Systems) and Dr. James Knochel to reduce the damage award for…
Click here to read Mike Cassidy’s article published in Health Lawyers News, September 2006.
Copyright 2006 American Health Lawyers Association, Washington, D.C. Reprint permission granted. Further reprint requests should be directed to American Health Lawyers Association 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036, (202) 833-1100. For more information on Health Lawyers content, visit us at
A health law news service recently reported a United States District Court holding that a physician whose privileges were summarily suspended and ultimately terminated by a Pennsylvania hospital could not prevail on antitrust or breach of contract claims asserted against the hospital based upon the federal and state peer review immunity statutes. Although it is accurate…
JCAHO MS.1.20 (i.e. the proposed medical staff by-laws standards to be adopted by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) has been generating significant controversy since amendments were first proposed in January of 2004, which amendments would have required approval of both the medical staff and the hospital governing board to adopt and…
An adverse peer review report to the National Practitioner Data Bank is a threat frequently used by hospitals to leverage physicians into otherwise unacceptable peer review compromises. Once the report has been made to the Data Bank, the alleged adverse peer review of action is public knowledge and significantly jeopardizes physicians’ continued practice opportunities. Although the Data…
In a recent discovery order of The United States District Court, the Southern District of Texas confirms the relevance and discoverability of patient records in credentialing disputes involving comparative peer review, i.e., the peer review disputes where the penalties imposed one physician are dissimilar or unequal to those imposed on others. Continue Reading COMPARATIVE PEER REVIEW RECORDS MADE AVAILABLE BY COURT ORDER
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT RULES ECONOMIC CREDENTIALING POLICIES COULD VIOLATE FRAUD AND ABUSE RULES IN BAPTIST HEALTH CASE
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed a state appellate court ruling issuing a temporary injunction prohibiting Baptist Health, enjoining the hospital from enforcing its economic credentialing policies. The basis of this injunction is that the Baptist Health economic credentialing policy, which would prohibit physicians from owning financial interest in competitive facilities from maintaining Medical Staff membership and clinical privileges at Baptist Health, is the following;
Continue Reading ECONOMIC CREDENTIALING POLICIES COULD VIOLATE FRAUD AND ABUSE RULES
