In Bansal vs. Mount Carmel Health Systems, Inc., an Ohio state appellate court ruled that the hospital had failed to prove that documents were protected by Ohio’s statutory peer review privilege (Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.25), and reversed a trial court summary judgment decision. Dr. Girraj K. Bansal was removed from the hospital’s call schedule, and
Credentialing and Peer Review
Peer Review Confidentiality Impacted by Forum Shopping
In Kentucky, common law president permits discovery of peer review documents. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.252 protects peer review discovery.
In Saleba v. Schrand, the estate of a Kentucky resident sued an Ohio physician and Good Samaritan Hospital, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, in Kentucky based upon the results of medical services performed in Ohio. The Kentucky…
Montana Physician Obtains Injunction Preventing National Practitioner Data Bank Report
The Montana Supreme Court held in John Doe, M.D. v. Community Medical Center that the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) does not preempt state law regarding injunction and breach of contract, thereby allowing the lower court to issue an injunction against Community Medical Center prohibiting it from issuing a Data Bank report regarding the…
NAMSS Blog Announces MS.01.01.01 Field Review by Joint Commission
Ad Hoc Medical Staff Committees Protected by HCQIA
In Feller v. Miriam Hospital, the Rhode Island Superior Court provides additional guidance regarding immunity protection pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA).
In that case, Dr. Joseph Feller was practicing at Miriam Hospital in Rhode Island. He encountered some disciplinary issues in 2002 and agreed to both monitoring by a hospital appointed…
Fourth Circuit Decision Identifies Importance of State Peer Review Immunity Statutes
In Isaiah v. WMHS Braddock Hospital Corporation and Memorial Hospital and Medical Center of Cumberland, the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order granting summary judgment against Dr. Isaiah in favor of WMHS Braddock Hospital on the basis that summary judgment was appropriate under both HCQIA and the Maryland statutes providing immunity for peer review activity…
State Courts Continue to Limit Confidentiality of Peer Review Records
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in Board of Registration in Medicine v. Hallmark Health Corp. that the Massachusetts licensing board would subpoena certain hospitals peer review records.
In Director of Health Affairs Policy Planning, University of Connecticut v. Freedom of Information Commission, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state’s freedom of information…
Georgia Supreme Court Rules Peer Review Information Not Always Confidential
In Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County v. Meeks, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that information contained in a physician’s peer review file was not necessarily protected by the Georgia Peer Review Confidentiality Statute.
Although the holding is enticing from the physician perspective, the limitations contained in the opinion render the precedent potentially meaningless.…
HCQIA Case Denies Defense Request for Attorney’s Fees
Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, has produced yet another important opinion from the HCQIA prospective. In its most recent ruling, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has dismissed a claim by physicians, named as defendants in the litigation arising out of Dr Stratienko’s suspension, to recover attorney’s fees against…
Must Hospitals Provide Credentialing Information for Physicians?
Is there a duty for a hospital to answer a credentialing inquiry from another institution? A hospital’s refusal to answer an inquiry presumably has the same impact as an employer’s refusal to answer a request for references: when the inquiring party receives no response, they presume, and usually rightly so, that the party to whom…