Re: TX doctor wins 2.5M peer review suit- and lost at least that
From: Joe (forcep@intercom.net)
Wed Oct 25 19:48:12 2006
JD: You are one wise dude ! My only question is ,has the profession of
medicine always been this way or is this the Fall of The Roman Empire? Joe C
JD Stewart,MD wrote:
> For the newly arrived, sham peer review is all and always will be about
> money.
>
> There is a real eye opener for you practicing docs that haven't had the
> pleasure of going through the grinder of a hospital or health system
> driven economic purge done through the peer review process. Those in
> successful private practice, particularly solo are most vulnerable. If
> the Goliath wants to own you or your patient pool, and you are not
> willing to sell out, then you are a sitting duck for this kind of
> nightmare.
>
> There are million dollar law firms with likely YOUR hospital as clients
> specializing in this area who give seminars and workshops on Using the
> Peer Review Process to "manage" your medical staff.. detailing just how
> far they can go and still stay just short of being successfully sued as
> this case in Texas. The medical staff office spends its lunch hours
> listening to these tapes. See <<http://www.hortyspringer.com/>>
>
> Your colleagues and competitors can and will say just about anything
> during the "secret investigation" portion of these hearings, which you
> will learn about after it is all over, and it is disheartening to
> realize just how cheaply our colleagues can be bought...
>
> Advice learned the hard way...try and keep privileges with at least 2
> hospitals at all times, keep up with your medical records, and keep
> separate copies of your own medical charts if you suspect a coup is in
> the works.
>
> Be prepared if you find your practice and your livelihood is in jeopardy
> to spend thousands of dollars and many, many hours defending yourself.
>
> In many ways, this is MORE stressful than a single malpractice suit, as
> ALL your life and medical practice and ALL your cases are fair game, and
> it is stacked against you as far as being able to have legal
> representation, fair notice, any right to cross examination or even
> knowing the alleged complaints against you.
>
> There is no double jeopardy principle-- if they cannot find a successful
> outcome with a particular case and "expert", they will certainly find a
> waiting list of willing doctors who will say anything for a fee and come
> back again and again.
>
> And, as a corollary to Joe's comment about the "rat's assh*le"- - the
> lawyers involved will not only shove the rat's assh*le on your finger,
> but charge you for a wedding ring....
>
> At Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Douglas Krell wrote:
>
>>I believe the peer-review process should be a completely educational and
>>non-punative
>>exercise for the benefit of physicians and patients. If any discoveries
>>through
>>peer review lead to the conclusion that patient safety is threatened, the
>>issue should
>>be formally investigated by non-biased participants.
>>
>>--
>>Douglas Krell MD
>>
>>>From: dahmd@cfl.rr.com (D. Ashley Hill)
>>>Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
>>>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>>>Subject: Re: TX doctor wins 2.5M peer review suit
>>>Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:54:18 -0500
>>>
>>>At Sun, 22 Oct 2006, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>Using the most dangerous phrase in medicine "in my experience," I have
>>>seen marginal physicians threaten restraint of trade suits against
>>>well-meaning peer-review members. My concern with the lawsuit mentioned
>>>on this thread is that someone putting vacuums on face presentations,
>>>using fundal pressure to deliver shoulder dystocias, and performing
>>>hysterectomies on women without any indications sue his or her
>>>"competitors" on the peer-review committee after they suspend
>>>privileges. I have not been exposed to unfair peer review but I'm sure
>>>it exists, and likely more often in smaller communities. I wonder if
>>>anyone has a unique system that works better than local peer review to
>>>solve this problem.
>>>
>>>Ashley
>>>
>>>>In a message dated 10/21/06 6:41:18 PM, dahmd@cfl.rr.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>>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).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, remember you can't make anything by CLAIMING something. You have to
>>>>actually PROVE it, and prove disqualification for any immunities granted
>>>
>>>by law,
>>>
>>>>etc., etc., etc. These (winning) cases are FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. The
>>>>competitors (or hospital employees) making up these committees usually
>>>
>>>"get away with
>>>
>>>>murder" on these cases. Most are tossed out on motions of summary
>>>
>>>judgement.
>>>
>>>>Joe P.
>>>
>>>--
>>>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
>>
>
> --
> JD. Stewart, MD
> MFM up too late all night, every night
>
|
|
