HCQIA IMMUNITY

Blume v. Marian Health Ctr., No. 03 CV 4117 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 14, 2007)

The estate of a physician whose clinical privileges were suspended sued the hospital for antitrust, violation of due process, breach of contract, reckless infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with an existing contract and tortious interference with existing and future patients. The court dismissed all of the claims except the breach of contract claim, on which it granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. A jury trial to determine damages resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $146,025. The hospital filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

The District Court for the Northern District of Iowa ruled that, although the hospital suspended the physician in the reasonable belief that it was in the furtherance of quality care based on incident reports and complaints, the hospital was not entitled to HCQIA immunity because it failed to make a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter and did not provide the physician with adequate notice or fair procedures under the circumstances. Having ruled that HCQIA immunity was inapplicable, the court reaffirmed its breach of contract judgment against the hospital, noting that the medical staff bylaws constituted a contract between that physician and the hospital, and the various notice and hearing provisions therein were clearly disregarded by the hospital.