is david attorney david t their injunction doctors are disciplined in hospitals they have certain rights because of the ramifications of being reported to the data bank licensing board insurance companies now practice reason that we're saying good dr murphy has a likelihood of success is because there are rights there are not many in essence you have the right to notice in a fair hearing and there's not a lot of guideline on what that is you could look at the hospital lace and sing act which tells you that you have a right to inspect all pertinent information a right to present this is a right to know to an attorney and a right to a written explanation at the end there's a special provision that talks about summary suspension and it talks about how some are suspension only be implemented upon documentation that you have at that time  has the exist you have to freeze a moment in time when you smelly suspend someone's privileges because it is a pre hearing create due process right deprivation of your privileges so simply a matter of whether or not an emergency t r o should have been entered in regards to the reporting of the summer suspension well the court in napa gates talk about reinstating privileges so courts in those cases and that that issue wasn't touched on appeal they determined your privileges are reinstated so and that was  void the summary suspension or void discipline they don't i think that you could pretty clued the hospital from bringing another action it's not i don't believe it's for them to go back and do it again and they so they can they could still summarily suspend for this case and they could go back and do it the right way they can take what's called corrective action which is you still have your privileges but we're going to have a process and at the end of the process you lose then your privileges are taken away but so we did ask for a t r o before the hearing we were actually in there the same day asking back in front of him with essentially the same issues some other ones had popped up because things that we things happened during the hearing that we didn't know about only asked for the p r oh but this is where it's so important and i watch you could go on with the rest of your well if you that this summer suspension being voided naturally follows that determination if we would have been in front of a judge felt when we were in front of church primer before the hearing and we said did we don't have the charts this has done it in fifteen days the notice is that we had the jacksons to the hearing panel member they haven't been hearing panel members have been ruled upon if he had acted on that and said yes there is a fair question i'm going to stop this hearing i'm going to give you that the summary suspension is dissolved by definition i think by operation of law by the health care quality improvement act and case law is that if it is in effect for more than thirty days it's reported to the national practitioner data base that would be going back in my opinion to where the notice was and they have to start over again so i think it's inherent in the ruling i think that i to the here and pointed out even more detentions and he could have prevented he had the option i think of of two different remedies and i have had either or both or neither depending on how the court  that the judge can not put you back on staff cannot undo the summer suspension but they can just prevent a report to the databank will the process is played out some courts do that other courts say i'm going to effectively ordered to stay was to state the recordings of the national data correct ok so if we were to agree with you that the procedures underlying the suspension were flaw  i don't think there's any mechanism that would allow a court to tell off hospital they can't gauge in here so they're going to do that no matter what we do here asked for a permanent and ruling then he'll say hey i got my privileges i'm coming back i'm going to practice this hospital and it will be up to them at that point to decide what is now going to the procedural aspects of this let's say for sake of argument that something causes it to fall up it's not the average medical chart and the have people who are employed at every hospital often and nurses full time job to determine if a case falls out and  could go to a committee so our problem with the mightest report and especially how it ties into the testimony is it doesn't identify the charge you don't know what you're talking about it the my this report and four thirty am including the time when the patient died because the it was they were being monitored offsite there's a electronic i c u so that whatever was in the chart for that we did we don't have but we did have all there was an actual physical medical chart almost complete from e w but then the there was an initial notice orally which was absolutely defective that was on may twentieth i may twenty third they there was a one line letter absolutely violates the law and then on and at that we sent a letter explaining the deficiencies then i june first they sent a new letter were one of the tenth whatever again was it was not within fifteen days or so but the june first notice which let's argue for for testimony about a very general complaints there was no effort to tie them on to the four to peer review reports that we had or the eight over documentation issues that we had so and even if there had been we still the standard the minimum you have to do is just give this person the medical records so that he can defend and cross examine he would restore them yes we had what was the response well the response was they gave us the e w there was a cover letter saying here's what we have they say the hospital with thinks they gave us more then the the committees ha before which to me is scary first of all if we didn't we never had the medical records and it would that hospital saying is what you guys had more than the people who decided to murder suspect and they need to have the medical records in front of them which is didn't see that substantiated anywhere in the record that he was not allowed to go on the premises where does that come from well when he summarily suspended he's shut off from everything so that and that's that's in the that was in the trial  talked about the the fact that he was very specific there is a nurse whose job it is to call everyone at the hospital and say you dr murphy goes immediately that's done or got the nurse doesn't have privileges it was immediately upon the imposition of the summer suspension the presence of the medical staff through the apartment chair will be responsible to provide for alternate medical coverage for the patients of the suspended practitioner still in the hospital at the time of such a suspension so they he's not able to practice medicine at all at the hospital but practicing medicine and having the ability to inspect records are two different thing not in a hospital provided him a notice that he had the right to inspect the records i'm just simply trying to get at is there evidence in the record that he was precluded from doing that well i would take issue with what you what you said because practicing medicine is accessing the medical  hosty the licensing board would consider that practicing medicine he can't access the medical chart at that hospital can't practice medicine but for sake of argument they say that he could in the record if there is at there we started the hearing and hearing what well there was it was i need w the case that we're talking about right here and then it was about other cases as well so  it was our position that this was this the life of dr murphy at this hospital was essentially over until this court gave us a stay was only after this court gave us a stay that they went back and tried it on discipline him on one of the same cases we're talking cock here the main case here and the main case there the same since you got a case and some other cases as well that that that matter i assume is essentially close i mean they've been prevented from doing that here so once again i mean theoretically i i'm not possible as attorney but if if this goes well for  dr murphy in both cases they still are still a mac it isn't for them to compile a chart of him or records of what they think is wrong give him notice give him a hearing not to summarily suspend him but they can decide to reprimand him all the way up to revoke his privileges and the reason why it's significant is because that's the official record that will be in the national practitioner databank the mightest reports are just  documents and the mightest reports or one person's opinion about an event a by the medical chart the problem that we have is a we think that you just i mean i've never seen a hospital hearing where they don't another one they even had the charts at the hearing there if they would have had all the team charts at the hearing on the table perhaps that would have been enough but i've never seen a case where they don't give you the medical terms that's all you're talking about maybe you're entitle to some external review but they could probably argue you're not entitle to that there's probably some way because the case law so deficient here that you might not even be in entitle that you're certainly entitled to the actual medical chart that you're being are many many objections rates dr murphy's papers essentially but i i would i'd like to do say time i know that our time here when this is all just touch on what i think some of the major issues are first off there are things about which mr goldberg agree and things about which we disagree a one point that was raised initially is that the almost a mandamus request where you're not just preserving the status quo but here i learned something which has occurred that wasn't very one of the parties whether or not this court has the ability to point the summer important thing now touch on something that that hope we can sense on this room is the most important thing is whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits and that's tied to the issue of did roman substantially comply with  all of the data which was produced voluntarily by roman to dr murphy and the fact that dr murphy had a fair hearing and that transcript has been submitted to you three justices for you i think if there is no substantial likelihood on the merits then judge sauls heimer is is correct in denying that you are out if which is obviously an extraordinary measure it's an extraordinary relief and it's difficult for us i mean one thing i'll just touch on again is difficult for us from rome and have a bit of a moving target in terms of what they were bussing in their papers they've emphasized declaring the summer suspension  police reports witness statements and particularly for instance with regard to vitus reports that contain noise unifying dana as to who is this patient and the like these are dr murphy's scoured the record over the weekend there's nothing in the record where dr murphy under oath says i requested the opportunity to go to the hospital review all the records and i was denied i don't believe that exists he's now requiring for these circumstances for me right now is to have time to explain to you ok medical data that was produced and there's only one bit of sworn testimony in the record and that's counsel contacted awesome back on behalf of dr murphy and made very specific requests so if i could refer you to their exhibit age and the records see five three three it's also a test the appendix is a one night one an unreasonable backward us we produced all the minutes we could find related to the summer suspension procedure point to dr murphy's credentials last personnel file it added to braun center op right away between june sixth and june i'm this complete credentials file and his complete quality files were turned over so there's a lot of information bill but also that request was fully complied three all internal or external review of any of dr murphy's medical charts or patient care rendered by d murray all of those internal and external rues were turned over that i know of there were only two close peer review reports these are from prior cases that ultimately were decided one was an oil find an murray there were no witness statements but there was a very key document here by dr knapp and which was a memo file essentially about the summer suspension so that was turned off and that that i may refer to that later if i have time  and they're very detail they're dated if you have the time to look at them they're going to ok understand the first two relate exclusively to each other so obviously the complete medical record for that was turned over  tame support for their claim but dr murphy isn't practicing medicine appropriately he says who are these people and the reports don't seem to contain any identifying information presented all this other stuff and argued this is something the panel should consider when deciding this question so my point my question is how can there be appropriate how can that be procedurally for the doc against us we want to see the rightest report you submitted because the hospital the only reason want her to is thinks it supports its case against dr murphy i mean this is not something unrelated i'm not interested in what was produced i'm particularly concerned about what was in produce in the face of their requests and in the real clear given that you presented these i think there were eight or ten of  the they had access the electronic doctor to testify they had access to the electronic medical records so that's what they reviewed now there was some discussion of other peer review reports over the past eighteen months so the hospital fully and honestly disclosed that that yes other issues were considered a justice you're correct and in a very expansive environment you would turn over all of the records or the mightest reports as well but that's not those are not documents or data which was which were reviewed by the i me see where any of the members of the hearing committee they were almost entirely focused on e w but they also just honestly disclose and i will take responsibility for this as i am i am the one in bear in mind it's a summary suspension proceeding so you don't have a lot of time to make a decision from my perspective that's it's goes back to what i said before i'm the prosecutor w  if we had gotten a request for a continuance or some other notification that he would want the whole complete medical record but some of these there if you look if you have you know exhibit twelve is really the the tone and tenor of these mine to support i'm just flipping through some of which these were produced but you know something i'm looking at my this report unpaid see six twelve it simply says provided for by roman prior to the hearing absolutely justice and then the reason i started out my argument by referring to their counsel letter is because this is this is what we had to respond to i know they requested if they hear i don't open at the hearing itself right i would say the hearing i would say the hearing itself they objected to me refer referring to any cases the size that you  but they did not request a continuance and i don't recall i have to go back and look at the opening of the transcript i know mr goldberg objected to two issues at that time issue number one was that at the hearing panel members some of them may have been employed by advocate and issue number two was essentially arguing look this is all you got your case we don't want any reference whatsoever to other patients and the only questions i asked i recall asking a question  yeah we did talk about other his recent peer review history so dr chu did get some limited testimony on that but it was more justice from our perspective in trying to present this case is just an honest disclosure that yes his recent peer review history had been tough so and in terms of proof we received no for the requests for the hearing other than this june sixth letter which is very specific and it doesn't ask for any medical charts and i was there and i recommend to you at least before you decide this case please consider the david mary math if possible all of the documents and data that were to the medical records produce one was for e w and the other was for else that you just said is correct although i will state that the it's plain and i'm not sure which one you are reading from but each and every one contains a timestamp and the date of the date that the medical lawyers and we can only respond to what is asked and that's why i keep pointing back to that june sixth letter there is no request for medical charts in that lab now we went ahead and produced the complete medical record of b w because that that is the sum and substance of what this case is about and again as i said the hospital decided we better produce the complete medical records of amay who is a patient who was treated by dr murphy in the summer of two thousand and fourteen and the after that turned into a close peer review case where there wasn't all the five these minus reports are simply safety reports which are kept internally as reference and they're not these are not no i mean i do i do not know where mightest reports for me at least from my perspective justice these are circumstantial evidence that there might be a problem ok in the detection you're just you're out of time ok us i want to start by immediately addressed seen mr texans argument that we did not request medical records are june second notice of hearing our requests for hearing which was sent the day after we received the june first notice of hearing  information in the case where quality of care is a issue is the medical record that is the record where everyone in the hospital who is involved in the care of the patient documents are mandated to keep medical records that is the pertinent document if you look at and snappier out in all of those cases the notice contained alleged general deficiencies in quality care coupled with charts the charts provide the physician the opportunity to cross examine and rebut the allegations concerning the quality of care as mr goldberg said there has not been a hospital hearing you've done where the medical charts are not provided each of yours purported to be the entire medical record for each other provided although we dispute as to what's missing from that e w was the only medical record that was available at the hearing there were no other medical records at the hearing on the very committee based its decision on matters said about other cases quality care issues the patient so there was another state yes through the testimony i guess i was i was thinking you were referring to two documents but yes there was testimony from the witnesses about other cases and that is where the exhibits in other words the mightest reports and the peer review reports that were provided that constituted the basis on which of the hearing committee of based his decision in addition to the e w materials so they didn't go beyond what they had been provided you're saying it just wasn't sufficient enough to allow dr murphy the ability to cross examine on those peer review absolutely yes judge and if i could and i just i want to read from atkins because i think this is extremely important the court and when i was addressing the statement of the alleged noticed deficiency in their case the court the supreme court said even if the issue could be more precisely stated in the notice the fact that the relevant charts were included was sufficient under the language of the violence and under basic notions of fair enough to constitute adequate n