Frengell v. InterCare Community Health Network demonstrates the counterintuitive nature of certain peer review actions.
Dr. Frengell’s employment was terminated following the inappropriate prescription of narcotics. InterCare reported Dr. Frengell to the National Practitioners’ Data Bank, although the report was not required and the court concluded, and InterCare admitted, that it had not provided any…
In Pierson v. Orlando Health, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion for summary judgment for the hospital on the basis that the hospital was immune from any liability from damages under the immunity provisions of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA).
Dr. Pierson had argued that…
In Genchi v. Lower Florida Keys Hospital District, a Florida State Appeals Court took the opposite view from the Arkansas Supreme Court in Baptist Health, posted just last week, regarding the importance of preserving physician/patient relationships.
In Baptist Health, the Arkansas Supreme Court recognized the potential interference with physician patient relationships posed by…
After years of litigation and appeals, the Arkansas Supreme Court has finally decided in Baptist Health v. Murphy that the economic credentialing policy tortiously interfered with the physician/patient relationships of a group of its staff cardiologists and enjoined Baptist Health from using its economic credentialing policy to deny staff appointments and clinical privileges to 12…
The case of Wood v. Archbold Medical Center Inc., presents an interesting twist regarding HCQIA immunity. The holding basically provides that “professional review activity” is a lesser level of adverse activity and need not meet the due process standards of HCQIA in order for a hospital to retain HCQIA.
In Dr. Wood’s situation, there were…
In Vranos v. Skinner, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reaffirmed the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit arising out of a summary suspension of a physician’s staff privileges. The bylaws of Franklin Medical Center contained the typical internal grievance procedures. Dr. Vranos alleged that the hospital had not complied with…
Physician credentialing disputes often involve and may depend upon proof of “unequal treatment.” These situations arise when hospitals allege certain substandard performance or conduct by physicians, but the physician’s defense is that they are no different than anyone of the physicians, that the issues are common and that they are being discriminated against. In order to prove…
Fox v. Good Samaritan presents two interesting variations on issues commonly raised in peer review cases. The case originated 10 years ago and arises out of the suspension of Dr. Fox after he refused to designate a coverage physician with clinical privileges equal to his own. When Good Samaritan Hospital suspended his clinical privileges, following medical staff…
In KD v. United States, a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, both granting and denying a motion for a protective order in parts, indicates that PSQIA of 2005 has changed its opinion regarding the protection of peer review documents under federal common law privilege.
The opinion notes…
In Ramamurthy v. JFK Medical Center and Solaris Health System the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed a summary judgment dismissing Dr. Ramamurthy’s Petition for Injunctive Relief, which sought a court order prohibiting a suspension imposed by the hospital. Dr. Ramamurthy had argued at the trial court level that the hospital had…
