Georgopoulos v. Humility of Mary Health Partners (Summary)

HCQIA

Georgopoulos v. Humility of Mary Health Partners, No. 2010-T-0071 (Ohio Ct. App. June 24, 2011)

The Court of Appeals of Ohio ruled that a hospital and physician leaders were immune from liability in a lawsuit arising from a Medical Executive Committee’s (“MEC”) decision to require peer observation of a cardiothoracic surgeon’s next six surgeries.

Concerned over the surgeon’s long operating times and excessive use of blood products, the hospital had sought review of ten of his surgeries by a nonaffiliated heart surgeon and then by a different surgeon selected by the physician. In the meantime, the physician had voluntarily refrained from performing cardiac surgeries.

The matter was sent to the MEC, which decided that another surgeon would observe the doctor’s next six surgeries. Although a hearing committee found that new evidence made the MEC’s decision unwarranted, the MEC upheld its decision, as did a Joint Conference Committee. The doctor subsequently stopped practicing medicine.

The surgeon then sued. He alleged several causes of action, including violation of his due process rights. He also claimed that the hospital, Chief Medical Officer, and Director of the Cardiac Surgery Program were not entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”).

The trial court found that the hospital, Chief Medical Officer, and Director of the Cardiac Surgery Program were immune from suit under HCQIA and dismissed the case. The court of appeals agreed, holding that the surgeon did not rebut the HCQIA presumption that the hospital undertook the professional review action under a reasonable belief that it was furthering quality of care. The court found that treatment outcomes are not the only measures of quality of care. And in light of HCQIA’s purpose to prevent adverse patient outcomes, it found that the doctor’s operation times and use of blood products appropriately drew the attention of the hospital. The court also held that the fact that the Director of the Cardiac Surgery Program did not testify at the hearing did not violate the surgeon’s right to adequate notice and hearing.