medical staff hearing

August 1, 2024

Posted on by jwilbert

QUESTION:
Our Medical Staff Bylaws allow the MEC or Board to be represented by a lawyer at a medical staff hearing only if the practitioner who requested the hearing is also planning to be represented by a lawyer. We recently went through a hearing where this caused some issues, because the physician who was the chair of the MEC at the time the Committee made its adverse recommendation was not available to present the MEC’s case at the hearing. No one else wanted to step up to advocate the MEC’s position at the hearing. Since the practitioner did not choose to be represented by his lawyer, we had to scramble to find someone to represent the MEC at the hearing. We wish we could have used our lawyer. Is there a better way to handle this?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
There is a better way to handle this! You will be glad to know that neither the Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals nor the accreditation standards prohibit hospitals or their medical staffs from being represented by a lawyer at a hearing, even if the practitioner is not represented. Additionally, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”), which grants a safe harbor for immunity for the hospital and those who engage in peer review activities on behalf of the hospital, does not prohibit the hospital or its MEC from having legal representation. The HCQIA does require you to permit the physician who requested the hearing to have legal representation at the hearing, and to provide notice to the physician of that (and other) rights to which he is entitled at the hearing. But if the physician fails to take advantage of those rights – including the right to be represented – there is no obligation on the part of the hospital or MEC to make the same sacrifice. So, it is completely within your discretion to amend the Medical Staff Bylaws to make representation at hearings a right of both parties (without regard to whether the opposing party decides to be represented). Of course, you should always check with your counsel first, so that any applicable state laws and regulations can be consulted (just in case those include more stringent hearing provisions).

While you are free to (and probably should) adopt Bylaws language that provides for a universal right to legal representation at medical staff hearings, you should consider a different course of action when conducting professional review activities that are part of the collegial, progressive steps of the peer review/professional practice evaluation processes. We have long recommended that the peer review process be conducted as it was originally intended: peer-to-peer, without the meddling of legal counsel. After all, the whole point of “peer” review has always been to ensure that those who have the clinical expertise and ethical/professional obligations of the medical profession are at the forefront of reviewing their colleagues’ work and assisting with continuous performance improvement. Lawyers play no role in this process. Having lawyers present at collegial conversations and interventions can only hamper conversation and increase defensiveness. It is sure to stifle the process.

For this reason, we have always recommended that Bylaws documents and peer review policies state that no lawyers are allowed (both for the peer reviewers and for those subject to the review process) at these types of meetings. Your policy might allow for rare exceptions to this general rule, where requested by the practitioner subject to review and for good reason, but only if the exception is agreed to by the committee/body conducting the peer review activity. Further, we recommend that such exceptions rarely be made. Importantly, however, if an exception is made to allow the practitioner to bring a lawyer to a meeting, the peer review body should also be granted the same exception (allowing its legal counsel to be present, if it so desired).

In sum, at a medical staff hearing, the practitioner will always be entitled to be represented by counsel if he or she wishes. Therefore, the MEC and Board are not in any way compromising the interests of the physician if the Bylaws provide them with the unqualified right to utilize counsel for representation at the hearing (regardless of whether the physician chooses to have legal representation). By contrast, in routine peer review activities at the Hospital, the practitioner will almost never be entitled to be represented by counsel and, in turn, it would be unfair to allow the MEC and Board to utilize legal representation at meetings that are held pursuant to that process – unless an exception has been made to the general rule, permitting the practitioner to bring counsel to a meeting.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Rachel Remaley at rremaley@hortyspringer.com

October 15, 2020

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        In the Tayefeh v. Kern Medical Center case summarized in this week’s Health Law Express, there was confusion about whether the physician was entitled to a Medical Staff hearing because of his failure to disclose certain unfavorable information and the resulting “termination” of his clinical privileges.  Is there any way that we can make it clear in our Medical Staff Bylaws or Credentials Policy that such an event does not give rise to a hearing?

 

ANSWER:          Yes.  While it is always important to consult requirements under state law, which may address situations when a hearing is required (we saw the California Business and Professions Code come into play in the Tayefeh case), your Medical Staff Bylaws or Credentials Policy (“Bylaws”) should clearly define the consequences for certain events and the circumstances that give rise to a hearing.  In Tayefeh, the physician failed to disclose an “accusation” filed against him by the Medical Board of California.  The Bylaws should spell out the results of failing to disclose information requested on the application and instruct that any misstatement in, or omission from, the application is grounds to stop processing the application. A decision not to process an application for these reasons does not entitle the applicant to a hearing or appeal.

With that in mind, it also makes sense to review your application forms to confirm that the application questions are seeking information that you need to make an informed decision about someone’s qualifications.  For example, the hospital’s application in the Tayefeh case not only sought information on past actions by licensing boards, it also asked for information on pending actions.  Confirm that the questions on the application form are consistent with provisions in the Bylaws with respect to the threshold eligibility criteria that someone must satisfy for eligibility for appointment.  If one of your threshold eligibility criterion requires an applicant to “have a current, unrestricted license to practice that has never been subject to any restrictions, conditions, or probationary terms and have never had a license to practice in any jurisdiction denied, revoked, restricted or suspended by a state licensing agency,” then there should be a corresponding question on the application seeking this information.

Finally, your Bylaws should place an obligation on members to notify the Medical Staff Office of any change in information provided as a part of the application and state that a failure to do so may result in administrative relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges.  This permits the Medical Staff and Hospital to evaluate any changes in an individual’s qualifications, weigh those changes against eligibility criteria, and assess the appropriateness of any applicable consequences under the Bylaws.  Unless state law requires it, an administrative relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges because of failure to continuously satisfy threshold eligibility criteria does not give rise to a Medical Staff hearing.