Credentialing & Peer Review Legal Insider, October 2014

When CMS announced new finalized regulations in May, most of the coverage focused on the updates to the Conditions of Participation (CoP) regarding the amendment that allowed unified and integrated medical staffs for multihospital systems and member hospitals (Governing Body CoP §482.12). However, not to be overlooked was the final rule that clarified who could serve on a hospital's medical staff (Medical Staff CoP §482.22).

With the proliferation of online review sites and message boards, it's become increasingly commonplace for patients to post their thoughts about physicians for the world to see. When a negative comment threatens to damage a physician's reputation, it's important to choose the right course of action.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the "Court") granted a hospital's motions to dismiss and strike a cardiologist's lawsuit alleging whistleblower retaliation, interference with economic interests, unfair trade practices, and violations of 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 2000d against a hospital and one of its department chairs.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals (the “Court”), in an unpublished opinion, reversed a county Superior Court order for a hospital to produce peer review information. The Court ruled in a matter related to an orthopedic surgeon’s lawsuit alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.?Experts say recent changes to CMS regulations help clarify who can be on the ­medical staff, and the staff's role on the hospital's governing board

This is an excerpt from a members-only article. Please log in or become a member to read the complete article.