SkipCaptcha
597
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + +
Harris v. Bradley Mem. Hosp. and Health Ctr. (view source)
Revision as of 15:52, July 6, 2010
, 15:52, July 6, 2010Undo revision 793100 by NeverStopVandaIism (Talk)
[[Conservapedia will be destroyed by vandalism.]]
In ''Harris v. Bradley Mem. Hosp. & Health Ctr.'', 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1401 (May 19, 2005), a state court in [[Connecticut]] held that [[HCQIA]] does not immunize a hospital against all claims for damages because not all summary suspensions qualify as peer review under [[HCQIA]]:
:After a review of the case law and the evidence, presented by the plaintiff, the court concludes that the plaintiff engaged in more than one professional review action and that the plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether one of those actions satisfied the statutory requirements for immunity. The proceedings before the peer review committee led directly to the summary suspension of the plaintiff's privileges by the medical executive committee. This action by the medical executive committee constituted "an action ... based on the competence of an individual physician ..., which affects ... adversely the clinical privileges ... of the physician;" 42 U.S.C. § 11151(9); and thus satisfied the statutory definition of a professional review action.
[[category:peer review]]