Changes

In ''Bundren v. Parriott'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20258 (10th Cir. Aug. 24, 2007),  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Tenth Circuit]] affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant physician who was accused of defaming another physician by filing a complaint against him with the [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] (ACOG).

In ''Bundren v. Parriott'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20258 (10th Cir. Aug. 24, 2007),  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Tenth Circuit]] affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant physician who was accused of defaming another physician by filing a complaint against him with the [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] (ACOG).

The defendant physician had filed the complaint with ACOG against the other physician due to his testimony as an expert in a malpractice trial.  The trial court had granted [[summary judgment]] by concluding that the defendant physician "is not liable in damages for submitting his ACOG complaint, because the organization's grievance procedure is a 'professional review action' within the meaning of the Act."  On appeal, the [[Tenth Circuit]] disagreed with this analysis, noting that qualified immunity under HCQIA did not apply unless and until there was a finding that the ACOG proceeding satisfied the procedural of HCQIA.

The defendant physician had filed the complaint with ACOG against the other physician due to his testimony as an expert in a malpractice trial.  The trial court had granted [[summary judgment]] by concluding that the defendant physician "is not liable in damages for submitting his ACOG complaint, because the organization's grievance procedure is a 'professional review action' within the meaning of the Act."  On appeal, the [[Tenth Circuit]] disagreed with this analysis, noting that qualified immunity under [[HCQIA]] did not apply unless and until there was a finding that the ACOG proceeding satisfied the procedural requirements of [[HCQIA]].

The [[Tenth Circuit]] did hold for defendant on other grounds, including a finding of lack of any [[defamatory]] statements in the complaint by the [[defendant]].

The [[Tenth Circuit]] did hold for defendant on other grounds, including a finding of lack of any [[defamatory]] statements in the complaint by the [[defendant]].