Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Darling VS Charleston Memorial Community Hospital
(III. 1965) |
KEY ISSUE: Failure to have proper supervision; Case set aside the Charitable Immunity Doctrine
FACT SUMMARY: Hospital liable for negligent treatment resulting in amputation of teenager's leg nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult; hospital claimed that charitable immunity doctrine limited damages to its insurance |
|
|
Johnson VS Misericordia Community Hospital
(Wis. 1981) |
KEY ISSUE: Negligent credentialing; Failure of initial credentialing process.
FACT SUMMARY: Hospital liable to patient injured by physician who had failed to disclose pending malpractice cases and lied about privileges at other hospitals; should have verified information |
|
|
Elam VS College Park Hospital
(Ca. 1982) |
KEY ISSUE: Negligent Credentialing
FACT SUMMARY: Hospital liable for podiatrist's negligence; failed to obtain malpractice claims data although medical records department aware of claims |
|
|
Patrick VS Burget
(1988) |
KEY ISSUE: Anti-competitive peer review: HCQIA; Violation of Federal Anti-trust laws
FACT SUMMARY: Physicians conducted peer review for anti-competitive reasons liable for violating federal anti-trust laws. |
|
|
Robinson VS Magovern
(1982) |
KEY ISSUE: Hospitals may determine proper limitation on competition within the hospital and surrounding areas - careful and thorough adherence to bylaws that contain objective criteria required. Denial of application is not a restraint of trade.
FACT SUMMARY: MD brought antitrust suit because he was denied privileges. Hospital did this based on shortage of OR space, un favorable recommendation, failure to publish MD on seven other staffs and would probably not be able to contribute to hospital teaching program. |
|
|
Miller VS Eisenhower Medical Center
(Ca. 1980) |
KEY ISSUE: Disruptive behavior must be patient care related.
FACT SUMMARY: Denial of application based on inability to work with others; no quality of care problems |
|
|
Rao VS Auburn General Hospital
(Washington Court of Appeals, 1978) |
KEY ISSUE: Disruptive behavior. Personality may be considered if affects ability to practice or hospital operations - personality problems must affect the workings of the hospital.
FACT SUMMARY: Hospital denied privileges to MD after receiving reports from other hospitals on termination/restriction of privileges. Other hospitals also reported substandard work and emotional instability. |
|
|
Boyd VS Albert Einstein Medical Center
(Pa. 1988) |
KEY ISSUE: Ostensible agency; MCO liable for practitioner's action.
FACT SUMMARY: IPA-type HMO advertised as providing medical care held liable for member MD's negligence. |
|
|
Harrell VS Total Health Care, Inc.
(Mo. 1989) |
KEY ISSUE: Negligent credentialing; Failure to credential.
FACT SUMMARY: State law granted immunity to non-profit health plans; MCO not liable for negligent credentialing. |
|
|
McClellan VS Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania
(Pa. 1992) |
KEY ISSUE: Duty to select and monitor providers; Negligent credentialing; Ostensible agency
FACT SUMMARY: MCO liable for provider's action |
|
|
Mathews VS Lancaster General Hospital
(Pa. 1996) |
KEY ISSUE: HCQIA burden on physician to prove bad faith peer review
FACT SUMMARY: Committee including competitors found substandard care; outside consultant agreed; surgeon challenged summary judgment applying HCQIA immunity; HCQIA presumption of good faith upheld |
|
|
Bell VS Sharp Cabrillo Hospital
(Ca. 1989) |
KEY ISSUE: Negligence in reappointment; negligent credentialing
FACT Summary: Hospital liable for physicians actions due to its failure to request data from other hospital about basis for its summary suspension. No deficiencies had occurred at Sharp Cabrillo. |
|
|
Hongsathavij VS Queen of the Angels Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital
(Ca. 1998) |
KEY ISSUE: Governing body is ultimate authority.
FACT SUMMARY: Physician taken off back-up panel for failing to accept patient; Board overturned hearing committee recommendations to reinstate call panel membership due to lack of substantial evidence. |
|
|
Mahmoodian VS United Hospital Center
(W. Va 1991) |
KEY ISSUE: Disruptive behavior
FACT SUMMARY: Hospital can revoke otherwise competent physician's privileges when physician's disruptive behavior may adversely affect patient care |
|
|
Oskooi VS Fountain Valley Regional Hospital & Health Center
(Ca. 1996) |
KEY ISSUE: Failure to disclose
FACT SUMMARY: Ophthalmologist did not disclose all prior hospital affiliations on application; Hospital's summary suspension upheld. |
|
|
Webman VS Little Company of Mary Hospital
(Ca. 1995) |
KEY ISSUE: Duty to credential; Reasonable application requirements; Burden of proof.
FACT SUMMARY: Physician refused to authorize release of information by prior hospital; new hospital denied application; court held for hospital |
