Brader v. Allegheny General Hospital

From Conservapedia

In Brader v. Allegheny General Hospital, 167 F.3d 832 (3rd Cir. 1999), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Health Care Quality Improvement Act ("HCQIA"), which was designed to encourage physicians to engage in reviews of their peers, permits immunity to attach to such review activities provided that the reviews meet certain procedural requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 11112(a). A doctor challenging the review process must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the review process was unreasonable.

The Court considered an appeal by plaintiff Dr. Alan Brader ("Brader") from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Allegheny General Hospital ("AGH" or "Hospital") on Brader's suit alleging breach of contract in connection with several hospital privileges and promotion decisions. The appeal required the Court to determine whether AGH met the requirements for immunity under HCQIA, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq., or, in the alternative, under the Hospital's internal Bylaws. The district court held that AGH was immune from suit under AGH's Bylaws.

The Court concluded that Brader has failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to conclude that AGH acted unreasonably. Immunity therefore attaches to AGH. Thus, the Court affirmed without reaching the question whether AGH is entitled to immunity under the Bylaws.

Clark v. Columbia/HCA Info. Servs., 117 Nev. 468, 478 (2001), distinguished this and similar decisions against physicians challenging peer review.