Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Peer review systems serve an important purpose in ensuring quality health care is provided to patients. However, one problem with peer review systems is that it they may be used for improper purposes, such as to punish a whistle-blower or a person whom those high up in a medical institution simply dislike. Many are the health care providers who have felt singled out for discipline for unjust reasons. Often, their only recourse has been to sue the members of a peer review team, their bosses and their hospital for torts such as defamation or interference with professional relationships, but because of peer review immunity rules and statutes, such tactics often prove futile. In particular, the U.S. Congress' passage of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), U.S.C. 42 ” 11101 ' 11152, squelched many hopes for financial compensation for peer-review excesses.
It looked like one doctor had successfully bucked that system in 2003 when he won a huge judgment against a hospital and a superior that had suspended his privileges for 29 days while they investigated allegations of substandard performance against him. After that award was overturned by an appellate court, the doctor took an appeal to the U.S. Court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit decision in Poliner v. Texas Health Systems, — F.3d —-, 2008 WL 2815533 (C.A.5 (Tex.)), concurring with the lower appellate court, has put another damper on the hopes of unhappy peer-reviewed medical professionals who want to seek monetary damages for their real or perceived injuries. On the other hand, the decision has eased the minds of those who must step up to ensure the quality of medical care, even when it means taking away some or all of a colleague's privileges.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.