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

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

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

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