Changes

Here, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed plaintiff's suit, which asserted the following:   

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:   

<br />

<br />

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

 

The Court held that, when proper, immunity is granted for physician [[peer review]] committees under the [[Health Care Quality Improvement Act]] of 1986 ([[HCQIA]]).

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 <blockquote>

Summary Judgment is required when <blockquote>

"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)  

"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)  

</blockquote> Rogers v. Columbia/HCA, 971 F. Supp. 229, 233 (W.D. La. 1997).

</blockquote>''Rogers v. Columbia/HCA'', 971 F. Supp. 229, 233 (W.D. La. 1997).

Judge F. A. Little, Jr., delivering the opinion of the Court found that:

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.  <br />

1. All defendants were immune from suit under HCQIA as they were part of "professional review body."  Id.  <br />

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.<br />  

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.<br />  

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.<br />

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.<br />