+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Federal Appeals Court reverses lower Court ruling; reaffirms immunity for hospitals and physicians in peer review cases



Federal Appeals Court reverses lower Court ruling; reaffirms immunity for hospitals and physicians in peer review cases



Wmj 107(7): 344-346



Peer review committees in Wisconsin should keep in mind both the Wisconsin peer review immunity statute and HCQIA when structuring their peer review processes. Documenting that actions were taken in good faith is critical. While this is not a consideration under HCQIA, it is under Wisconsin law. Temporary restrictions on a physician's privileges can be appropriate when patient safety requires it; in these circumstances, hospitals should make sure to keep the issue raised by HCQIA's emergency exception. By and large, courts have sided with hospitals in peer review disputes. The physician challenging the peer review action bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that no reasonable belief supported the action. While the initial rulings in the Poliner case raised concerns, these rulings were not typical and were ultimately reversed. The recent ruling by the Appeals Court affirms that HCQIA stands on solid ground, provides reassurance to hospitals and physicians engaged in peer review, and advances the goals of Congress by allowing peer review committees to take actions that are in the best interest of patients. At the same time, physicians subject to review retain the right to seek remedies other than money damages and to hold a hospital and its medical staff to a reasonable standard conduct that they can reasonably implement.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 053223888

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 19180875


Related references

Texas high court reaffirms pets are property. Reverses appellate court ruling that dog owner can recover 'sentimental value' damages. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 242(10): 1330-1331, 2013

Court cases testing scope of federal law's peer review immunity. Modern Healthcare 22(34): 80-80, 1992

Appeals court blasts mandate. 11th circuit ruling sets up high court showdown. Modern Healthcare 41(33): 4, 2011

Federal Appeals Court affirms National Gerimedical ruling of antitrust exemption for health planning. Health Law Vigil 3(16): 5-6, 1980

Claims for compensation by physicians using alternative treatment. Verdict from the Stuttgart Provincial High Court and Court of Appeals from 4-16-2002 -1(14) U 71/2001. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 128(10): 512, 2003

Federal appeals court declares public hospitals aren't beyond the reach of antitrust laws. Modern Healthcare 21(5): 4, 1991

New York Court of Appeals abandons immunity of hospitals for medical negligence. Hospital Management 84(2): 70; Passim, 1957

Court's ruling could cripple peer review. Business Insurance 16(28): 1, 44-1, 44, 1982

The Avera Marshall decision. What the Supreme Court's ruling means for hospitals and physicians. Minnesota Medicine 98(5): 29-31, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court ruling on medical peer review. Hawaii Medical Journal 47(10): 489-491, 1988

Supreme Court refuses to review clinic access law; Second Appeals Court upholds statute. Reproductive Freedom News 4(13): 2-3, 1995

Supreme Court reaffirms landmark informed-consent ruling in chickenpox case. Cmaj 157(5): 553-554, 1997

Supreme Court decides Patrick; peer review alive and well despite ruling. Health Law Vigil 11(13): 1-5, 1988

Court ruling invalidates patent on noninvasive test for down syndrome: decision cites landmark Supreme Court ruling in Myriad Genetics case. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A 164a(2): Xi-Xi, 2014

Pa. appeals rate ruling to Supreme Court. Modern Healthcare 21(45): 16, 1991