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

Credentialing Developments: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Review Hearing Officer Authority Ruling; Ohio Court Of Appeals Allows Discovery Of Peer Review Records Under Prior Law

Hearing Officer Authority

In California, a Medical Staff Hearing Officer terminated a Medical Staff Hearing on the grounds the physician was “repeatedly disruptive, disdainful of the Hearing Officer’s authority, and flagrantly violated the rules pertaining to discovery and documentary exhibits.” This ruling allows the ruling by a California State Court that the termination did not violate the physician’s due process rights to stand. Meleikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem, U.S. No. 05-638.
Continue Reading Credentialing Developments

In Bocobo v. Radiology Consultants of South Jersey, et al, a federal district court granted summary judgment to the radiology group and hospital defendants on eleven counts including the denial of a medical staff hearing. The radiologist was employed by the radiology group and the exclusive contract between the hospital and the group provided that…