Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,356
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − +
→top: Spelling, grammar, and general cleanup, typos fixed: 477-78 → 477–78
This precedent has been widely followed to exclude evidence of bad faith from lawsuits against hospitals for [[sham peer review]].
This precedent has been widely followed to exclude evidence of bad faith from lawsuits against hospitals for [[sham peer review]].
This precedent was distinguished by ''[[Clark v. Columbia/HCA Info. Servs.]]'', 117 Nev. 468, 477-78, 25 P.3d 215, 2001 Nev. LEXIS 46, 117 Nev. Adv. Rep. 42 (2001), as follows:
This precedent was distinguished by ''[[Clark v. Columbia/HCA Info. Servs.]]'', 117 Nev. 468, 477–78, 25 P.3d 215, 2001 Nev. LEXIS 46, 117 Nev. Adv. Rep. 42 (2001), as follows:
:The presumption of immunity has been interpreted by the federal courts almost exclusively in favor of finding immunity for peer review board members. [citing ''Austin'' as an example] In fact, in only two cases have federal courts reversed an order of summary judgment based on immunity because the physician demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the board failed to give appropriate fair notice and procedures in accordance with § 11112(a)(3) - ''Islami v. Covenant Medical Center, Inc.'' and [[LeMasters v. Christ Hosp.|LeMasters v. Christ Hospital]]. In addition, in ''Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services'', the Tenth Circuit upheld a district court's finding that the peer review board lacked immunity because the board only investigated two patient charts before deciding to revoke the physician's privileges, which was not a reasonable effort to obtain facts under § 11112(a)(4). Moreover, in Brown the board reported false findings to the National Practitioner Data Bank pursuant to § 11137(c).
:The presumption of immunity has been interpreted by the federal courts almost exclusively in favor of finding immunity for peer review board members. [citing ''Austin'' as an example] In fact, in only two cases have federal courts reversed an order of summary judgment based on immunity because the physician demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the board failed to give appropriate fair notice and procedures in accordance with § 11112(a)(3) - ''Islami v. Covenant Medical Center, Inc.'' and [[LeMasters v. Christ Hosp.|LeMasters v. Christ Hospital]]. In addition, in ''Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services'', the Tenth Circuit upheld a district court's finding that the peer review board lacked immunity because the board only investigated two patient charts before deciding to revoke the physician's privileges, which was not a reasonable effort to obtain facts under § 11112(a)(4). Moreover, in Brown the board reported false findings to the National Practitioner Data Bank pursuant to § 11137(c).