Rogers v. Columbia/HCA of Central Louisiana, Inc.
From Conservapedia
In Rogers v. Columbia/HCA of Central Louisiana, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 229 (W.D. La. 1997), the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed plaintiff's suit, which asserted the following:
antitrust violations of the Sherman Act (Counts One, Two, and Three), that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3715.3 is unconstitutional (Count Four), violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count Five), violation of the HCQIA, § 11111 (Count Six), and defamation (Count Seven). Rogers seeks injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief.
The Court held that, when proper, immunity is granted for physician peer review committees under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA).
Summary Judgment is required when"the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)Rogers v. Columbia/HCA, 971 F. Supp. 229, 233 (W.D. La. 1997).
District Judge F. A. Little, Jr., delivered the opinion of the Court that:
1. All defendants were immune from suit under HCQIA as they were part of "professional review body." Id.
2. Contrary to plaintiff's claim, § 11151(9) does not "require that a "professional review action" necessarily involve consultation with a sub-specialist in the same field as the physician being reviewed." Id at 234.
3. Standards of HCQIA § 11112(a) were met: reasonable belief, reasonable effort to obtain facts; adequate notice and hearing, and reasonable belief after reasonable effort.
4. HCQIA does not provide for a private right of action. Congress, in enacting HCQIA, merely intended to protect the professional peer review committees from suits.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed without an opinion on appeal.[1]
References
- ↑ 140 F.3d 1038 (5th Cir. 1998).
