Valfer v. Evanston Nw. Healthcare — May 2016 (Summary)

PEER REVIEW IMMUNITY

Valfer v. Evanston Nw. Healthcare
No. 119220 (Ill. May 19, 2016)

The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the Appellate Court of Illinois’ dismissal of a breach of contract claim brought by a physician against a hospital, holding that the hospital was immune from liability pursuant to the state peer review statute in the absence of willful and wanton misconduct. After a medical staff peer review committee at the hospital determined that at least 50% of the surgeon’s surgical cases lacked necessary indications for intervention, the surgeon’s operating privileges were suspended and, ultimately, the hospital denied the surgeon’s reappointment, citing patient safety concerns. Following a three-day medical staff hearing and an appellate review process, the hospital board adopted the recommendation to deny, after which the surgeon sued.  Finding that the hospital did not violate the bylaws, the lower courts determined that the hospital had immunity conferred by the state’s peer review statute.  The lower courts also determined that the case did not fall within the “willful and wanton misconduct” exception to peer review immunity, finding that the plain text of the statute required a showing of physical harm by an affected practitioner. The physician was unable to show physical harm when he alleged that the hospital did not follow its bylaws relating to suspension of privileges. The court reasoned that if the exception to immunity included any and all types of intentional harm, including harm to one’s reputation or economic well-being, it would negate any immunity provided by the peer review statute. Also, the court clarified that this case should not be interpreted as condoning sham peer review, explaining that hospitals do not have absolute immunity from all legal challenges to all decisions made by peer review committees. As examples, it offered the possibility of injunctive relief for decisions about compliance with hospital bylaws and tort actions for physical harm brought by willful and wanton misconduct, neither of which the court found in this case.