Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst. (Summary)

Peer Review

Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., No. SJC-09236 (Mass. Feb. 9,
2005)

A physician
sued a hospital, a hospital administrator, and others, seeking damages for
invasion of privacy, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unlawful retaliation, intentional interference with contractual relations,
and other causes of action in connection with a series of events that occurred
in the aftermath of the discovery that two patients enrolled in an experimental
breast cancer study at the hospital had mistakenly been administered an overdose
of a highly toxic chemotherapy drug.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that disclosures about the physician’s
professional conduct were not actionable because there was no private right
of action for a physician under investigation to sue for an invasion of privacy
when protected peer review information inadvertently or intentionally is released
to the public. The court also held that, although the hospital violated the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it restricted the physician’s
clinical privileges without first notifying her of her right to a hearing,
she could not recover since she could offer no evidence of compensable loss.
The court also held that letters written by the physician’s superior in response
to the committee’s recommendations were the product of peer review and were
therefore inadmissible. Although the court found that the physician could recover
for her claim of retaliation (and that the physician’s awards were not limited
by a charitable cap), it held that the physician’s allegations of bad faith
could not be supported and should be dismissed.