03.08.2013 Views

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

legitimate competition is encouraged, but it is wrong to destroy a competitor’s<br />

business with lies or improper interference. For example, assume that there are two<br />

surgeons on the medical staff of a hospital. Assume further that this is a small town<br />

with only one hospital. If surgeon Y starts a rumor that surgeon X is a drunk <strong>and</strong> is<br />

dangerous to his patients, this is sl<strong>and</strong>er. If surgeon Y starts this rumor to improve his<br />

or her practice by destroying surgeon X’s practice, this is also tortious interference<br />

with surgeon X’s business relationships.<br />

Another form of tortious interference is to entice business associates not to honor<br />

their contractual obligations. For example, a physician group that tries to persuade a<br />

hospital to break its exclusive contract with a radiology group could be liable for<br />

tortious interference with a contractual relationship. In many states, tortious<br />

interference resembles invasion of privacy more than it does defamation. The truth of<br />

the accusation used to inflame the physician’s business associates is not a defense.<br />

Even if the physician does cheat patients, it is improper to use this information to<br />

persuade the physician’s business associates to change their allegiance. The proper<br />

course is to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings.<br />

2. Federal <strong>Law</strong> Violations<br />

Peer review actions are most commonly contested in federal court under federal<br />

laws. This allows the aggrieved physician to escape state law protections for peer<br />

review actions. More important, the federal courts do not recognize state laws that<br />

protect peer review committee minutes <strong>and</strong> related records from discovery. Some<br />

federal laws also provide for treble damages <strong>and</strong> attorney’s fees if the plaintiff<br />

prevails. Without the possibility of this increased recovery, it would not make<br />

economic sense to contest most improper peer review actions. <strong>Law</strong>s that pay a bonus<br />

to a successful plaintiff are called private attorney general laws. These provisions are<br />

intended to encourage private enforcement of the law through civil litigation, saving<br />

the government the cost of prosecuting violators in the criminal justice system. Both<br />

the antitrust laws <strong>and</strong> RICO contain these private attorney general provisions.<br />

3. Due Process Violations<br />

Due process is legal shorth<strong>and</strong> for a set of notions regarding fairness. Daniel Webster<br />

defined this phrase to mean a law that “hears before it condemns, which proceeds on<br />

inquiry, <strong>and</strong> renders judgment only after trial.” [Trustees of Dartmouth College v.<br />

Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).] Courts divide their inquiry into the fairness of the<br />

law (substantive due process) <strong>and</strong> the fairness of the application of the law<br />

(procedural due process). Due process is a consideration in peer review in two<br />

situations: when the hospital or other entity carrying out the review is a governmental<br />

entity <strong>and</strong> if the review is governed by specific state or federal laws that impose due<br />

process requirements.<br />

In governmental entities, such as a city or county hospital, the actions of the peer<br />

review committee are imputed to the state. Since the Constitution requires the states<br />

439

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!