Court pitches massive award over peer review process

An appeals court has reversed a big jury award to a Dallas doctor who said he was harmed by a hospital's peer view process, greatly relieving physicians who feared that they, too, would be targeted by such suits in the future when serving on peer-review committees. Many observers were astonished when Dr. Lawrence Poliner won an award of $360 million over the suspension of his privileges at 680-bed Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, given that federal law (the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) protects physicians from liability in such cases. 

Dr. Poliner had convinced a jury that he was defamed by the suspension of his echocardiography and cardiac-catheterization privileges there during a review of his cases. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that peer reviewers enjoy protection from money damages as long as they have a "reasonable belief that the action was in furtherance of quality healthcare."

To learn more about this case:
- read this Modern Healthcare piece (reg. req.)

Related Article:
TX doctor wins $22.5M peer review suit

Suggested Articles

The profit margins and management of Community Health Group raise questions about oversight of managed care insurers.

Financial experts are warning practices about the pitfalls of promoting medical credit cards to their patients.

A proposed rule issued by HHS on Tuesday would expand short-term coverage, a move Seema Verma said will have "virtually no impact" on ACA premiums.