-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: TX doctor wins 2.5M peer review suit From: D. Ashley Hill (dahmd@cfl.rr.com) Sat Oct 21 18:39:43 2006 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: rmodugno@aol.com: "Cervical ripening agents" Previous message: Joe: "Re: TX doctor wins 2.5M peer review suit" In reply to: Joe: "Re: TX doctor wins 2.5M peer review suit" Next in thread: Ina May Gaskin: "induction risk" Reply: Ina May Gaskin: "induction risk" I don't think I understand your comments. I am under the impression that at most hospitals the peer-review committee is a volunteer committee composed of practicing physicians on the medical staff. I would assume almost all of them would be competitors unless they were part of the same group. Probably a better alternative would be to use the local peer-review committee as a screen, then ship off cases that might result in loss of privileges to an off-site peer reviewer. However, this is expensive since it can cost hundreds of dollars an hour for peer review. I agree with Garry that there is no hope for peer-review if you can make millions by claiming "restraint of trade" every time someone questions your clinical skills (of course, I do not know the details of the case in question). Ashley At Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Joe wrote: > >I am sure their hospital by-laws stated that a competitor could not be >on the peer review panel. This exact thing hsppened to me. Hospitals >really don't give a rats ass about your medical staff by-laws. Joe C > >Garry E. Siegel, M.D. wrote: >> If peer review can be successfully sued, this is big trouble. >> >> Garry >> >> At Sat, 21 Oct 2006, GIN11153@aol.com wrote: >> >>>A Texas cardiologist has been awarded $22.5 million in appeal to his his >>>suit against three rival cardiologists and the Presbyterian Hospital of >>>Dallas. A previous jury had found in favor of his charges of breach of >>>contract, defamation, business disparagement, tortious interference with a >>>contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded him a >>>$366 million judgment, but the judge hearing the appeal reduced the award. >>> >>>The dispute dates back to 1998, when a hospital peer-review panel suspended >>>Dr. Lawrence Poliner's cath lab privileges, citing concerns about his safety >>>record and technique. In response, Dr. Poliner filed suit against the >>>hospital and several hospital-affiliated physicians. In his suit, he >>>contended that the peer-review process was unfair, given that the reviewers >>>were largely cardiologists competing for his business. >>> >>>For more about the suit: >>>- read this article from TheHeart.org >>> >>>Gail Neuman RNC CPHW SNP >>>student nurse practitioner and student midwife >>>Perinatal education >>>Perinatal Nurse Associates >>>Santa Ana, CA >> >> -- >> Garry E. Siegel, M.D. >> Private Practice >> Roswell, GA >> -- D. Ashley Hill, MD Associate Director Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Florida Hospital Family Practice Residency Medical Director, Loch Haven Ob/Gyn Group Division Director, Dept. of Ob/Gyn, Florida Hospital Orlando Orlando, Florida Next message: rmodugno@aol.com: "Cervical ripening agents" Previous message: Joe: "Re: TX doctor wins 2.5M peer review suit" In reply to: Joe: "Re: TX doctor wins 2.5M peer review suit" Next in thread: Ina May Gaskin: "induction risk" Reply: Ina May Gaskin: "induction risk"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Sat Aug 2 04:51:06 2008

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.