Harris v. Bradley Mem’l Hosp. and Health Ctr., Inc. (Summary)

HCQIA/SUMMARY SUSPENSION

Harris v. Bradley Mem’l Hosp. and Health Ctr., Inc., No. 18944 (Conn. Sept. 4, 2012)

In this case arising from the summary suspension of a physician, the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed judgment in favor of the physician and remanded the case with instructions to render judgment in favor of the hospital, finding that the hospital was entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”).

The hospital requested an external review of a nonrandom sample of the physician’s cases because of concerns about his clinical capabilities.  An unfavorable report was returned to the hospital, which then formed a peer review panel to conduct further review.  Without notice of the meeting date or the cases on which he would be questioned, the physician was summoned to appear before the peer review panel.  Based on reports from the external reviewer and the peer review panel, the hospital summarily suspended the physician’s surgical privileges. The surgeon requested a hearing.  After a hearing and appeal, the summary suspension was continued.

The surgeon sued the hospital.  A trial was held with the jury returning a verdict in favor of the surgeon.  After numerous proceedings, the hospital appealed arguing that the lower court failed to apply the presumption of immunity to summary suspensions.  Specifically, the hospital argued that “although professional review actions generally must be preceded by certain notice and hearing procedures to be entitled to a presumption of immunity…a summary suspension followed by notice and hearing nonetheless is entitled to that presumption when necessary to prevent imminent danger to patients.”  The court agreed that the presumption of immunity applies to summary suspensions.  To find otherwise would “conflict with Congress’ intent to resolve the question of immunity under the [HCQIA] as early as possible and to reinforce judicial deference to hospital decision-making.”  Since the physician did not submit any argument in opposition to the hospital’s immunity claim, the court found that the hospital was immune under the HCQIA.