Meyers v. Logan Memorial Hospital

Meyers v. Logan Memorial Hospital,  No. CIV.A.1:97-CV-219-M (W.D. Ken. Jan. 27, 2000)

Plaintiff physician applied for staff privileges at defendant Hospital and in accordance with the Medical Staff Bylaws, was granted provisional clinical privileges for one year. At the
end of the provisional year, the Credentials Committee recommended denial of  his appointment and clinical privileges. The Medical Executive Committee accepted the Credentials Committee’s recommendation. Concerned with the way the peer  review was being conducted, a committee of the Board took over the review. It, too, concluded that plaintiff should not be appointed to the staff based on his failure to “meet [the hospital]’s standard of care, abide by the ethics of the profession, work cooperatively with others, and timely complete medical
records.” A Fair Hearing Committee (FHC) composed of a retired court of appeals judge, an attorney, a bank president, a licensed dentist, and an industrialist was appointed. The FHC met eleven times; throughout this process plaintiff was represented by counsel and was given the opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses. The FHC recommended that the hospital deny appointment to plaintiff.  The LMH Governing Board adopted the recommendation.

Plaintiff filed suit in state court, seeking an  injunction to prevent the hospital from reporting the action to  the National Practitioner Data Bank and to reinstate his staff privileges. The trial court granted the injunction in reference to the NPDB, but refused to force the hospital to reinstate his privileges.

Plaintiff also sued in federal court, alleging antitrust violations and including the claims from the state court action. The Federal District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that they were entitled to the immunity provided by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. The court rejected plaintiff’s  argument that the HCQIA immunity did not apply because no physicians served on the hearing panel. It also ruled that the hospital was not required to wait for a patient to be harmed or a nurse to quit to take a professional review action.