Colantonio v. Mercy Med. Ctr. (Summary)

HCQIA/ PEER REVIEW IMMUNITY

Colantonio v. Mercy Med. Ctr., No. 2009-00054 (N.Y. App. Div. May 18, 2010)

A New York appeals court granted partial summary judgment in favor of a medical center that is being sued for defamation by an allegedly disruptive physician whose privileges were revoked, holding that many of the contested statements, which the physician alleged constituted defamatory statements, were statements of pure opinion that are not actionable as defamation.

The physician argued that medical center personnel made false complaints and false statements that led to the loss of his privileges and, thereafter, the medical center held a press conference, disseminated a memorandum, and published a newspaper advertisement also defaming him.

While the court granted summary judgment with respect to all of the physician’s claims that were based on matters of opinion (for example, statements that the physician had poor judgment, was belligerent and very unreasonable, not stable, and inappropriate, and created havoc in the ICU), it denied summary judgment for the remaining portions of the physician’s complaint. Among other things, the court held that the medical center was not entitled to immunity under the state peer review law and the federal HCQIA, since triable issues of fact existed regarding whether medical center personnel acted with malice or made knowingly false statements.