DeKalb Med. Ctr. v. Obekpa (Summary)

PEER REVIEW/IMMUNITY

DeKalb Med. Ctr. v. Obekpa, No. A12A0160 (Ga. Ct. App. May 2, 2012)

The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed a lower court ruling and found that a hospital was entitled to immunity from declaratory judgment, an injunction and action brought by a physician denied renewal of his clinical privileges, based on the state’s peer review protection law.  Shortly after the physician was appointed to the hospital staff, hospital personnel began to notice and complain of issues with the physician’s performance. The complaints prompted an initial collegial intervention. The physician was notified that he would be monitored, but his conduct did not improve. The MEC appointed a committee to investigate the physician’s charts and the recommendation from that committee was to limit the physician’s patients, monitor his compliance, and have him complete mandatory training. A hearing was requested, with the result that the hearing panel adopted the MEC’s conclusions but lessened the severity of the corrective action. The physician appealed and the board decided to adopt the MEC’s original recommendation and reject the physician’s application for reappointment.

The physician wanted the decision of the board set aside and the recommendation of the hearing panel to be issued instead. The trial court enjoined the hospital’s report of the reappointment denial to the National Practitioner Data Bank while his underlying request for an injunction was pending.  The court found that the lower court was wrong because there was no evidence to infer that the peer review process was motivated by malice. The lower court said malice could be inferred because one of the physicians on the investigating committee sought to limit the referrals of the physician being investigated. However, the court disagreed and found, no evidence to support the lower court’s finding. Because there was no evidence of malice found, the court held that the hospital was entitled to immunity from the suit.