Difference between revisions of "Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hosp."
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: 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 entit...) |
m (cat) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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:Circuit Cases]] | ||
| + | [[category:Tenth Circuit]] | ||
[[category:Judicial Immunity]] | [[category:Judicial Immunity]] | ||
[[category:peer review]] | [[category:peer review]] | ||
Revision as of 19:01, April 12, 2008
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."