Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp.,
No. CV990079598 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 1. 2001)

A physician sued a hospital and three physicians when his clinical privileges were revoked and his license to practice medicine was suspended. Most of the counts of the complaints had been dismissed previously, and the hospital and physicians now moved for summary judgment on the remaining counts of the complaint. The Superior Court of Connecticut denied these motions.

The court discussed the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) and determined that HCQIA established immunity for the professional review body as defined in the Act. The court further stated that HCQIA created a presumption that peer review meets the standards for immunity unless the physician can show evidence that the standard was not met. The physician argued that the peer review in this case did not meet the standard for immunity because the hospital and physicians acted with malice. While the court recognized that the physician had not proven his allegations of malice, it noted that the hospital did not raise any evidence to counter the allegations of malice. The court therefore concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were still material questions of fact as to whether malice was present during the peer review in this case.