Dispute Over Core Privileges Decided in Favor of Hospital in Negligent Credentialing Case
The California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of a hospital on a negligent credentialing claim brought by a patient who experienced complications after having an endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection surgery (“ETSP”) performed by a neurosurgeon at the hospital. The patient argued that the hospital breached the standard of care by including ETSP in the core for neurosurgery privileges and not requiring any “specific demonstration of their competence” to perform the procedure. For core privileges in neurosurgery, the hospital required applicants to “have performed within the last 12 months at least fifty (50) neurological surgical procedures reflective of the scope of privileges requested, or successful completion within the past 12 months of an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] or American Osteopathic Association accredited residency or clinical fellowship.” In affirming the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, the appeals court found that the patient’s expert’s declarations were deficient in that they “did not explain why [the hospital] fell short in its reliance on the standard set by the ACGME, which includes ETSP surgery as a core neurosurgery skill that a physician has obtained by the time they graduate from residency.” Karkera v. Redlands Cmty Hosp., Inc.
Vicarious Liability Claim Involving Teleradiologist Is Going to a Jury
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied a patient’s motion for summary judgment in a case alleging corporate negligence and vicarious liability against a hospital based on allegations that a teleradiologist missed, on an x-ray, a cancerous mass in the patient’s chest. The patient’s motion sought a ruling that the teleradiologist was an agent of the hospital. In denying the motion, the court held that whether the radiologist was an agent was an issue of fact that would be decided by the jury. Nigro v. Uddin
Physician’s Challenge of Termination of Appointment and Privileges Is Unsuccessful
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a physician’s case brought against a hospital challenging the termination of her medical staff membership and clinical privileges. Following an investigation, a recommendation by the Medical Executive Committee to revoke her clinical privileges, and a medical staff hearing upholding the recommendation, the hospital’s appellate review committee affirmed the revocation. The physician sought writ relief in court, which if granted would have required the hospital to set aside the action. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the physician’s requested relief, finding, among other things, no improper bias in the hospital’s process, no unfairness because of the involvement of medical staff leaders, and no issues with the use of hearsay or prior adverse incidents in the peer review record. O’Hanlan v. Dignity Health Sequoia Hosp.
False Claims Act Retaliation Claim Dismissed
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted a hospital’s motion to dismiss a nurse practitioner’s False Claims Act retaliation claim because she failed to plausibly allege that her termination was caused by protected activity. The nurse practitioner asserted that the hospital retaliated against her after she asserted that the hospital violated the False Claims Act by, among other things, submitting claims for reimbursement while allowing unlicensed employees to perform histories and physicals and use her electronic signature and provider identification number without her knowledge or authorization. Even though her allegations about the histories and physicals were protected activity and she provided the hospital with sufficient notice of her concerns, the court concluded that the gap between her report and termination was too long to support causation. Nwosu v. Otero Cnty. Hosp. Ass’n, Inc.