Difference between revisions of "Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by C Jenkins (talk) to last revision by DavidB4-bot)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
In '''''Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital''''', 423 F.3d 18 boring 4, 201 (3d Cir. 2005), the Court of App boring eals for the [[Third Circuit]] upheld a trial court's ruling that the defendant hospital had immunity from d boring amages for suspending and then revoking a physician's medical-dental staff privileges, because this adverse [[peer review]] met the definition of professional review under [[HCQIA]].
+
In '''''Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital''''', 423 F.3d 184, 201 (3d Cir. 2005), the Court of Appeals for the [[Third Circuit]] upheld a trial court's ruling that the defendant hospital had immunity from damages for suspending and then revoking a physician's medical-dental staff privileges, because this adverse [[peer review]] met the definition of professional review under [[HCQIA]].
  
 
The decision was rendered by Judge [[D. Michael Fisher]].  Then-Judge [[Samuel Alito]] joined his decision, as did Judge [[Thomas L. Ambro]].
 
The decision was rendered by Judge [[D. Michael Fisher]].  Then-Judge [[Samuel Alito]] joined his decision, as did Judge [[Thomas L. Ambro]].
Line 5: Line 5:
 
[[Category:Third Circuit]]
 
[[Category:Third Circuit]]
 
[[Category:Peer Review]]
 
[[Category:Peer Review]]
−
[[Category:Boring]]
 

Latest revision as of 22:24, December 27, 2019

In Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital, 423 F.3d 184, 201 (3d Cir. 2005), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a trial court's ruling that the defendant hospital had immunity from damages for suspending and then revoking a physician's medical-dental staff privileges, because this adverse peer review met the definition of professional review under HCQIA.

The decision was rendered by Judge D. Michael Fisher. Then-Judge Samuel Alito joined his decision, as did Judge Thomas L. Ambro.