Skip to main content

Home/ healthcare regulation and scandals/ Group items tagged HCQIA

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Brett Snodgrass

Mathews v. Lancaster General Hosp., 87 F. 3d 624 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1996 -... - 0 views

scholar.google.com/scholar_case

healthcare HCQIA healthcare quality improvement act hospital Court of Appeals court appeal appeals preponderance of evidence plaintiff summary judgement peer review sham peer review congress federal law doctor physician professional regulation medical lic

shared by Brett Snodgrass on 19 Oct 15 - Cached
  • Dr. Robert Mathews
  • He practices as a corporate partner with anothe
  • George Kent.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Dr. Kent was performing spinal surgery at Lancaster General. Dr. Mathews was listed as a co-surgeon for the operation. During the procedure, a high speed drill slipped and tore the patient's esophagus.
  • 27 of the 208
  • Mr. Robert Katana, President and CEO of Columbia Hospital, discovered the application did not contain a reappointment reference from Lancaster Genera
  • unity from 632*632 monetary damages under ยง 11111(a) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. The district court also granted summary judgmen
  • Brett Snodgrass on 19 Oct 15
     
    Interesting and complex case. Surgical privileges at hospitals vary markedly from most other physician privileges
Brett Snodgrass

Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P. 2d 291 - Nev: Supreme Court 1993 - Googl... - 0 views

scholar.google.com/scholar_case

HCQIA healthcare quality improvement act Court of Appeals court appeal appeals healthcare hospital google scholar supreme court state med professional regulation healthcare regulation Board of Registration for the Healing Arts medical license Board of Med

shared by Brett Snodgrass on 19 Oct 15 - Cached
  • Dr. Alan J. Mishler
  • After a brief association with the neurosurgeon in Reno, Dr. Mishler, appalled at the neurosurgeon's standards of practice and his billing procedures, refused to work with him any longer.
  • Dr. Mishler
  • ...32 more annotations...
  • the Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Washoe Medical Center (WMC)
  • brought his concerns to the attention of
  • Governor
  • an investigator
  • he Board
  • the Board obstructed Dr. Mishler's access to the records.
  • WMC did not renew Dr. Mishler's hospital privileges.
  • As a result, Dr. Mishler could not obtain work elsewhere
  • Board denied him access to the evidence (X-rays and radiographs)
  • none of the experts had an opportunity to review the X-rays
  • When WMC initiated the hostile chart review against Dr. Mishler
  • First, the Board's timing is suspect because it initiated proceedings against Dr. Mishler five years after he treated the patients in question, when the Board knew that WMC had a five-year retention policy
  • According to the uncontroverted evidence, Dr. Mishler's colleagues, in retaliation against him for his candor
  • Board knew that Dr. Mishler had declared bankruptcy and could not afford counse
  • the Board's failure to retain the records relevant to the license revocation proceedings against Dr. Mishler demonstrates a significant degree of discovery abuse
  • Fifth, the merits of the allegations against Dr. Mishler were inadequately addressed because neither he nor any of the witnesses had the opportunity to view the X-rays and diagnostic films.
  • similar abuses
  • Dr. Mishler's surgeries were successful, the symptoms vanished,
  • The sole purpose of the power to revoke a physician's license is to protect the public.
  • Boswell held that a doctor's harsh criticism of other doctors did not warrant revocation of his license
  • the discipline was unwarranted.
  • The Board's power was not exercised for the proper and commendable purpose of protecting 297*297 the public from incompetent and negligent physician
  • Instead, the Board wielded its power to ruin the career of an outspoken physician while simultaneously protecting a possibly negligent or incompetent practitioner who had questionable billing procedures.
  • only one
  • subsequently found to be unjustified,
  • Board
  • limit the evidence
  • obstruct Dr. Mishler's access to evidence,
  • violated the same policy
  • The Board knew that Dr. Mishler was so impoverished that he had declared bankruptcy, and that he could ill afford to hire counse
  • In short, we conclude that the Board's actions and the proceedings against Dr. Mishler constituted a disturbing abuse of its power
  • reverse the disciplinary order of the Board in its entirety and dismiss all proceedings against Dr. Mishler with prejudice
  • Brett Snodgrass on 19 Oct 15
     
    too painful to read. torture of physicans for reporting bad doctors.
Brett Snodgrass

Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P. 2d 291 - Nev: Supreme Court 1993 - 0 views

scholar.google.com/scholar_case

healthcare regulation professional regulation Board of Registration for the Healing Arts medical license Board of Medical Examiners Board of Examiners in Medicine patient safety Arizona medical board AZ healthcare quality improvement act HCQIA Court of Ap

shared by Brett Snodgrass on 21 Oct 15 - Cached
  • When we look beyond the label of the discipline given to Dr. Mishler to the true nature of the facts, we conclude that the discipline was unwarranted. The Board's power was not exercised for the proper and commendable purpose of protecting 297*297 the public from incompetent and negligent physicians. Instead, the Board wielded its power to ruin the career of an outspoken physician while simultaneously protecting a possibly negligent or incompetent practitioner who had questionable billing procedures.
  • In short, we conclude that the Board's actions and the proceedings against Dr. Mishler constituted a disturbing abuse of its power.
  • Therefore, we reverse the disciplinary order of the Board in its entirety and dismiss all proceedings against Dr. Mishler with prejudice.
  • Brett Snodgrass on 21 Oct 15
     
    In 1993, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned all the of the AZ Medical Board's claims v. Dr. Mishler with prejudice. The Board's actions against Dr. Mishler constituted a disturbing abuse of its power.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page