Romero v. KPH Consolidation, Inc.

Negligent Credentialing

Romero v. KPH Consolidation,
Inc., No. 03-0497 (Tex. May 25, 2005)

A patient brought suit against a hospital
for, among other things, acting with malice in credentialing a surgeon who
performed an operation that resulted in a patient suffering severe brain
damage. The surgeon had a history of drug abuse, a history which the patient
alleged the hospital knew of, but failed to act on. Under Texas law, a hospital
is not liable for improperly credentialing a physician through its peer review
process unless it acted with malice which, at the time of the suit, was defined
as actual awareness of, yet conscious indifference to, an extreme risk. A
jury found clear and convincing evidence that the hospital acted maliciously
in granting the surgeon privileges and allowing him to retain them. However,
the court of appeals determined the patient could show no evidence of malice
on the part of the hospital because of the silence of the record surrounding
the hospital’s peer review proceedings. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed, holding
that the acts or omissions of the hospital could not be inferred because
the hospital invoked its confidentiality privilege.