Changes

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 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 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).