[FN4] For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. |
FN1. Anthony J. Dragone and Charles A. DiCecca. |
FN2. Another individual defendant was dismissed pursuant to stipulation. |
FN3. The plaintiff's claims of antitrust violations, breaches of confidentiality and privacy, and violation of G.L. c. 93A, against all defendants, and his defamation claim against the individual defendants, were dismissed on earlier motions. |
FN4. The plaintiff's brief does not argue that the motion judge erred in disposing of the State law claims. Therefore, the issues are waived and we do not address them. Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), 365 Mass. 762 (1974). |
FN5. The QA & I committee is a medical peer review committee as defined by G.L. c. 111, § 1. It is charged with "the investigation, review and resolutions" of reports indicating a health care provider's "incompetency in his specialty or conduct that might be inconsistent with or harmful to good patient care or safety." G.L. c. 111, § 203, inserted by St.1986, c. 351, § 9. Once the plaintiff's case was presented to the QA & I committee, the peer review process began. |
FN6. The FHC found that the plaintiff's care of the patients in the other five cases met the proper standard of care. |
FN7. "On its face, [42 U.S.C. § 11111(a)(1) ] does not explicitly establish immunity from suit," but from liability for damages only. Bryan v. James E. Holmes Regional Med. Center, 33 F.3d 1318, 1322 n. 3 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1019 (1995), quoting from Decker v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 982 F.2d 433, 436 (10th Cir.1992). Nevertheless, the vast majority of suits challenging peer review proceedings should be resolved at or before the summary judgment stage. See Bryan v. James E. Holmes Regional Med. Center, supra at 1332 & n. 25. |
FN8. We think the result would be the same under the comparable State law immunizing medical peer review committees, G.L. c. 111, § 203(c ). |
FN9. The plaintiff mentions in his brief an alleged conflict of interest that occurred at the FHC hearing. According to the plaintiff, the attorney advising the FHC and the attorney defending the decision to discipline him were employed by the same law firm. The plaintiff does not point to any specific ruling of the FHC during the hearing that prejudiced him. In any event, the |
plaintiff's passing reference, devoid of any record citations or case law, does not amount to sufficient appellate argument. Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), 365 Mass. 762 (1974). |
We note, however, that peer review committees at hospitals should be aware that the practice of having the same law firm be involved in both giving legal advice to a review committee and presenting evidence before the committee could raise serious problems in some circumstances. |