Academic journal article American Journal of Law & Medicine

Licensing Actions: Hospital's Reasons for Revoking a Doctor's Privileges Constituted Adequate Notice Entitling It to Immunity-Northeast Georgia Med. Ctr V. Davenport

Academic journal article American Journal of Law & Medicine

Licensing Actions: Hospital's Reasons for Revoking a Doctor's Privileges Constituted Adequate Notice Entitling It to Immunity-Northeast Georgia Med. Ctr V. Davenport

Article excerpt

Licensing Actions: Hospital's Reasons for Revoking a Doctor's Privileges Constituted Adequate Notice Entitling it to Immunity-Northeast Georgia Med. Ctr v. Davenport1-The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the Hospital Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA)2 neither requires that a hospital's notice for a proposed action provide reasons in a "formal and precise" manner, nor does it mandate that the reasons be limited in number and scope or always be restated in the same terms.3

The Executive Committee of Northeast Georgia Medical Center (Hospital) placed Davenport, a doctor with staff privileges, on probation following a recommendation based on several complaints, from the Hospital's Peer Review Committee. Davenport then violated the terms of his probation and the Executive Committee, after several evidentiary hearings, repeatedly decided to revoke his medical staff privileges. On appellate review, the Hospital's Governing Board affirmed the decision to revoke Davenport's privileges. Davenport brought suit for damages, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital on the ground that the HCQIA afforded the hospital immunity. The appellate court reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the Hospital gave Davenport adequate notice of the reasons for the proposed revocation of his privileges.4

For protection under the HCQIA, subsection (a)(3) requires that peer review action be taken "after adequate notice and hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved or after such other procedures as are fair to the physician under the circumstances."5 The Hospital has the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of adequate notice. Under subsection (b), a hospital is deemed to have met this requirement if the physician has been given notice including reasons for the proposed action. A "failure to meet the conditions described in subsection (b) does not, in itself, constitute failure to meet the standards of subsection (a)(3)."6 Also, subsection (b) does not require written notice, only adequate notice is required.

The Hospital provided Davenport with two written notices of the proposed revocation of his privileges and of the reasons for such revocation. These notices charged Davenport with violating his probation, and provided a statement of the conditions of his probation, a specific six-page summary of complaints, a list of potential witnesses and a list of twenty-four patients to whom references may be made. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.