Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld an injunction preventing a hospital from disciplining one of its physicians after finding that the hospital’s peer-review process leading to the discipline of the physician was performed with malice and repeatedly violated the physician’s procedural rights.

According to court documents, the hospital had conducted a peer-review inquiry of a physician’s disruptive behavior which resulted in a 120-day suspension of the physician’s privileges and a post-suspension probation. The physician then sued to enjoin the hospital from disciplining him. The hospital sought to dismiss the action, claiming immunity under federal and state law.

The district court granted the request for temporary injunction after it determined that the peer-review action of the physician was taken in malice and, therefore, the hospital was not entitled to its claimed immunity.

According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ opinion, "the district court reached its conclusion of malice based on six findings:

1. Hospital’s peer-review process began outside hospital’s normal channels;
2. Hospital began its investigation in contravention of the hearing policy, which required that hospital leadership meet with physician to discuss his behavior before seeking discipline;
3. Hospital conducted the investigation in a manner contrary to the [hospital’s disruptive/abusive behavior policy], which required hospital to give physician an opportunity to correct his behavior before imposing discipline;
4. In charging physician, hospital cited incidents that were unfairly old;
5. Hospital treated physician disparately as compared to other physicians subjected to discipline; and
6. Hospital improperly applied its power to punish physician to 'make a public statement.'"

Read the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ opinion.