Legal Articles

Kadlec Decision Reversed by Appeals Court

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 8, 2008, (No. 06030745) reversed the District Court's opinion which included a holding that Lakeview Medical Center and Lakeview Anesthesia Associates had a duty to disclose to Kadlec Medical Center that Dr. Berry, a former partner with LAA, had a drug problem after Kadlec made inquiry after Berry applied to Kadlec for medical staff membership.

Anti-SLAPP Statutes and Peer Review

ALM Law Journal Newsletter Special Edition: California Supreme Court Renders Historic Decision.

Medical Staff in Need of Change

Explore a revolutionary way to reorganize your medical staff. With demands on hospital medical staffs growing more complex, the days of volunteer or popularly elected medical staff leaders are fading fast. Take a look at the history of medical staff leadership and learn about dramatic changes that could make your medical staff function more smoothly.

Amendment 7: The Patients’ Right To Know Flexes Its Muscle In Florida

The Florida “Patients’ Right to Know Amendment” or as it is often referred to “Amendment 7,” continues to eviscerate the peer review privileges which prevented the disclosure of information revealed during the course of a peer review proceeding brought against a physician or other healthcare provider in Florida.

Hospital Peer Review: Do It Right

In Poliner v. Texas Health Systems, a Texas cardiologist received a $22.5 million judgment after a Texas hospital convinced the cardiologist to stop performing catheterizations. This multi-million dollar verdict clearly identifies the risk that hospitals, and the physicians involved in peer review at those hospitals, face when making peer review decisions. Moreover, the decision underscores the premise that hospitals need to follow their own procedures if they want to qualify for applicable statutory immunities.

New California Statute AB 632 Could Weaken California’s Well Established Medical Staff Peer Review Process

 

Credentialing Case Law Trends—Who’s Winning, Who’s Losing, and Why.

These slides are the property of the American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA) whose mission is to educate, inform and promote dialogue on health law issues. They may not be duplicated without AHLA's express permission. Please visit its website at www.healthlawyers.org to join or learn more about the Association.

Duty to Disclose in Illinois After Kadlec?

In the wake of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent reversal of the Kadlecdecision, many hospitals are left questioning whether laws in their state create a duty to disclose information when responding to third-party inquiries about current and former medical staff physicians who have documented quality of care or impairment problems. As you may recall, because the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of this issue turned on state law in Louisiana, the analysis of whether a duty to disclose exists will vary from state to state.

Peer Review Primer; Part I: What Is Hospital Peer Review, Anyway?

Community hospitals and the doctors who supply the patient care in the hospitals have a symbiotic relationship. Both independent and co-dependent, they need each other to survive. The complicated character of that relationship is most clearly demonstrated through the hospital peer review process; that is, the procedure by which the hospital and the physicians regulate the quality of care provided by the physicians to the hospital patients.

Peer Review Primer; Part II: The Organized Medical Staff. How A Doctor Requests and Receives Privileges To Treat Hospital Patients

Community hospitals and the doctors who supply the patient care in the hospitals have a symbiotic relationship. Both independent and co-dependent, they need each other to survive. The complicated character of that relationship is most clearly demonstrated through the hospital peer review process; that is, the procedure by which the hospital and the physicians regulate the quality of care provided by the physicians to the hospital patients.

A Texas-Sized Credentialing Verdict for Physicians

If the $366 million jury verdict rendered by the U.S. District of the Northern District of Texas in Poliner v. Texas Health Systems1stands,Polinerwill be a landmark credentialing case. However, the purpose of this article is to do more than highlight the mega-judgment nature of the Polinercase; this article will trace the development of what was an approximate eight-year legal odyssey that has dealt with the typical issues presented in credentialing cases, i.e., confidentiality of peer review records, summary judgment on federal antitrust and state claims, immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act2 (HCQIA) and the state peer review immunity statutes, and damages.