Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital

HCQIA

Gordon v. Lewistown Hosp., No. 03-3370 (3d Cir.
Sept. 12, 2005)

A hospital revoked a physician’s privileges after a series of progressive steps (i.e., numerous warnings, multiple suspensions, and conditional reappointment) failed to conform the physician’s disruptive behavior. The physician then brought numerous claims against the hospital under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment based on immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) and dismissed many of the remaining antitrust claims on other grounds.

The physician was also seeking injunctive relief, so the case went to trial. After a three-week trial, the district court granted judgment in favor of the hospital on all of the remaining claims.

On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling based on HCQIA. The appellate court flatly rejected the physician’s arguments that immunity was not available to the hospital because his conduct (1) was aimed at soliciting business and (2) did not adversely affect patient care. Specifically, the court found that the solicitation exemption in HCQIA was based on the hospital’s objective intent in taking action, not on the physician’s subjective intent. Since the hospital’s revocation of the physician’s privileges resulted from a concern for patient welfare, the solicitation exemption was not applicable. The court also found that the physician’s “harassment and intimidation of elderly patients by calling them to disparage [their physician’s] skills” could adversely affect the health and welfare of patients, and thus the hospital’s action qualified as a professional review action. The court also upheld the dismissal of the remaining antitrust claims brought against the hospital.