Court Opinion

ID: 9795559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:31:30.913765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:16.830253
License: Public Domain

Maupin, C. L,
concurring:
Given the stringency of the standard for review under HCQIA,1 we are compelled to affirm. Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services,2 the case authority upon which Dr. Meyer primarily relies, does not support reversal. Brown did not hold that conflicting affidavits create issues of fact under HCQIA. Rather, Brown, correctly applying the standard for review under HCQIA, found no immunity because the premise for the discipline imposed by the peer review process in that case was false on its face. The incident upon which Dr. Meyer was terminated does not suffer from the same defect of proof. Thus, although termination of Dr. Meyer because of a single incident of improper care seems excessive, I must concur with the result reached by the majority.

See Sugarbaker v. SSM Health Care, 190 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1999); Manzetti v. Mercy Hosp., 741 A.2d 827 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999); Mathews v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., 81 F.3d 624 (3d Cir. 1996); Bryan v. James E. Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr., 33 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 1994); Imperial v. Suburban Hosp. Ass’n, Inc., 37 F.3d 1026 (4th Cir. 1994); Austin v. McNamara, 919 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1992).

 101 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 1996).