Difference between revisions of "Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hosp."
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The Court observed that "[t]here are no significant procedural safeguards" in [[peer review]] at a hospital. Moreover, there is a lack of "direct oversight by a government agency as well as a right to appeal to that agency." Instead, "there is very minimal and undefined oversight by the state medical board and no explicit right of appeal to that board." | The Court observed that "[t]here are no significant procedural safeguards" in [[peer review]] at a hospital. Moreover, there is a lack of "direct oversight by a government agency as well as a right to appeal to that agency." Instead, "there is very minimal and undefined oversight by the state medical board and no explicit right of appeal to that board." | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Circuit Cases]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Tenth Circuit]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Judicial Immunity]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Peer review]] |
Revision as of 16:15, July 13, 2016
In Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hosp., 310 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2002), the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that participants in peer review at a hospital were not entitled to the same absolute quasi-judicial immunity as enjoyed by participants in a medical board action against a physician.
The Court observed that "[t]here are no significant procedural safeguards" in peer review at a hospital. Moreover, there is a lack of "direct oversight by a government agency as well as a right to appeal to that agency." Instead, "there is very minimal and undefined oversight by the state medical board and no explicit right of appeal to that board."