Opinion ID: 2623312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: After a reasonable effort to obtain the facts in the matter

Text: With respect to the second HCQIA requisite, Meyer contends that the hospital made an insufficient effort to obtain the facts in this matter because the peer review committee decided to terminate Meyer's privileges based on a single chartAnguiano's rather than on Meyer's entire work history at the hospital. Meyer also relies upon Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services in support of this contention. We conclude that Meyer's contention lacks merit. In reviewing the facts in the matter, the peer review committee is required to consider only those facts upon which the professional review action is based. See Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 789 F.Supp. 1054, 1065 (E.D.Cal.1992). In Brown, the court concluded, in part, that a reasonable investigation into the facts in the matter had not been made because the review committee had based its decision solely on two charts, which the court deemed unreasonably narrow and insufficient to support its conclusion that a physician posed a threat to patient safety. 101 F.3d at 1334. We conclude that the instant investigation was distinguishable from the investigation in Brown since the physician in Brown was suspended because of general concerns for her overall quality of patient care reflected in her patients' charts. 101 F.3d at 1327. Moreover, as we previously noted, there was substantial evidence in Brown that the premise for suspension was false and that witnesses presented false or misleading evidence regarding the two charts. In contrast, Meyer's privileges were suspended based on a single incident of alleged substandard patient care. Because the professional review action was based on Meyer's conduct arising from a single incident, a review of her other patients' medical charts was unnecessary. Further, we cannot see how a review of Meyer's treatment of other patients would have been relevant to the peer review process in light of the fact that the hospital did not dispute, and actually considered, Meyer's two-year record of proper patient care before making its determination. Accordingly, we conclude that Meyer has failed to proffer sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the peer review committee acted only after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts in this matter.