Manzetti v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh

Manzetti v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh,
No. 53WAP2000 (Pa. July 18, 2001)

Cardiac surgeon whose privileges to perform open heart surgeries were suspended sued
hospital and the physicians who were involved in the review of his practice,
seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Soon after discovery began, the hospital
and physician defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the monetary
claims, which was granted by the lower court on the basis of HCQIA immunity.
The claims for injunctive relief were settled.

On appeal, the surgeon argued that the defendants were not entitled to HCQIA
immunity because a statistical study of his surgeries performed by two members
of the MEC was flawed, the investigation of his practice was brief and superficial,
and the Chief of the Division of Cardiac Surgery who suspended his privileges
was motivated by self-interest because he was a direct competitor. In addition,
the surgeon claimed that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment
before he was able to depose seven of the defendants.

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment and the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It too affirmed the summary judgment,
ruling that the cardiac surgeon was unable to rebut the HCQIA’s presumption
that the professional review action was reasonable. The court held that an investigation
of a physician’s practice does not have to be flawless, it must be sensible
and that the investigation in this case met that standard. In addition, the
court ruled that even if there was evidence that the Chief of Cardiac Surgery
was motivated by self-interest, it would be immaterial to determining whether
the surgeon had reed the HCQIA’s presumption of reasonableness. Most importantly,
the court ruled that the surgeon did not have an unlimited right to discovery
and was unable to show how additional discovery would have aided him.