Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CA Court: Peer Review Committee's Recommendations Not Final
The California Court of Appeal recently interpreted the scope of California Business & Professions Code ' 809.05, subdivision (a) in the case of Weinberg v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 119 Cal. App. 4th 1098; 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 6; 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1017 (5/28/04). Weinberg is the first published opinion dealing with the law, which requires that a hospital governing body give “great weight” to a peer review committee's recommendations regarding disciplinary proceedings against a physician, but authorizes the body to reject those recommendations, provided it does not do so arbitrarily or capriciously. The California Court of Appeal applied this statute to the review of physician disciplinary charges by the governing board of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after four peer review committee members identified deficiencies in a physician's performance, but nonetheless recommended against terminating his staff privileges.
The Peer-Review Process
Under the rules governing the medical staff at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, physicians are entitled to a hearing on disciplinary charges at which they can present evidence and cross-examine witnesses before a committee of physicians. The hearing committee makes a recommendation regarding the charges and submits it to the Medical Executive Committee (MEC). The MEC reviews the record to ensure that: 1) the physician received a fair hearing; and 2) the recommendation was supported by the evidence and is consistent with the medical staff's rules and practices. The MEC then makes its own recommendation. The physician in question can appeal from the MEC's recommendation to the hospital's Board of Directors. If no appeal is made, the Board will “either: 1) render a final decision in writing; or 2) remand the matter back to the [MEC] and/or Hearing Committee for further action or deliberation … and render a final decision at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?