Hurwitz v. AHS Hosp. Corp. (Summary)

HCQIA IMMUNITY

Hurwitz v. AHS Hosp. Corp., No. A-5112-12T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. Nov. 24, 2014)

The Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a surgeon’s lawsuit against a hospital, concluding that the hospital and the participants in its internal review processes were immune to the suit under federal and state law. The surgeon’s lawsuit had alleged several causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of due process rights.

Concerns over the surgeon’s work first emerged during 2010, after an outside expert found problems with the surgeon’s treatment of two patients. The Medical Executive Committee (“MEC”) voted unanimously to commence a formal investigation of the matter. Several months later, the investigating committee determined that the surgeon’s care exhibited delays in managing surgical complications and poor documentation of care plans. It concluded that these shortcomings had resulted in adverse outcomes for the patient.

This chain of events eventually culminated in a hearing and appeal. The hearing panel issued a report to the board of trustees, concluding that the surgeon demonstrated poor surgical judgment, lack of attentiveness to patients, untimely post-operative management of surgical complications, and a failure to provide adequate documentation. The board revoked the surgeon’s clinical privileges and he opted to take legal action.

The trial court dismissed the surgeon’s lawsuit, ruling that the surgeon had failed to present enough evidence to overcome the hospital’s legal protections under state and federal law. It reached the same conclusion for the surgeon’s lawsuit against the participants of the hospital’s internal review processes. On appeal, the surgeon argued that this decision was premature and that the court should have given him an opportunity to conduct depositions.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. It concluded that the hospital and other defendants were clearly within the scope of the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act, which provides immunity for participants in certain qualified professional review actions. In addition, it found that New Jersey state law also extended a similar form of immunity protection to the hospital and its peer reviewers. It disagreed with the surgeon’s argument that the trial court should have permitted him to conduct depositions, explaining that the surgeon had already had an opportunity to conduct some amount of discovery. It noted that strong public policy reasons supported the decision to limit discovery under certain circumstances, with the aim of encouraging a “free flow of evaluative communications within a hospital…in an effort to improve future patient care.”