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:
- Hospital’s peer-review process began outside hospital’s normal
channels; - 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; - 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; - In charging physician, hospital cited incidents that were
unfairly old; - Hospital treated physician disparately as compared to
other physicians subjected to discipline; and - Hospital improperly applied its power to punish physician
to ‘make a public statement.’"
Read the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ opinion.
