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
Credentialing and Peer Review
Professional Review Activity vs. Professional Review Action
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
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…
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Requirement Reaffirmed
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
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…
Update: Discovery of Peer Review Records
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
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…
California Federal Court Denies Attorneys Fees in HCQIA Case
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
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…
Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (PSQIA) May Change Federal Common Law Privilege
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
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…
Fundamental Fairness Trumps Technical Violations of Bylaws
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
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…
Connecticut Supreme Court Reinstates Physician’s Peer Review Damages
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
The Connecticut Supreme Court issued an interesting decision in the case of Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center Inc. in May of 2010, which was precipitated by the summary suspension of Dr. Harris. Not only did it overturn the trial court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the hospital, after…
Discovery of Peer Review Materials
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
Two recent decisions emphasize the ongoing battle for discovery of peer review information in negligence cases, and confirm that confidentiality is alive and well, but no longer automatic.
In Shell v. Sudan, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska ordered that deposition questions regarding a hospital risk analysis tool were not…
Medical Staff Bylaws as Contracts
By Michael Cassidy on
Posted in Credentialing and Peer Review
Cases with opposing interpretations on this issue were decided within the past month. Heretofore, the basic question had been whether medical staff bylaws constituted contracts under state law. The majority of courts deciding these cases have concluded that medical staff bylaws were valid contracts. In the states with the opposite holdings, the basic theory was that bylaws merely…