The Health Law Ticker

The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Boermeester v. Carry.  Though the case deals with fair procedure within a private university’s internal disciplinary proceedings, it provides helpful guidance for peer review bodies navigating medical disciplinary hearings.

Boermeester reiterated the long-standing admonition that courts should not try to impose “rigid procedures” upon private organizations’ administrative proceedings.  Rather, the organizations themselves should develop methods for providing the fundamentals of fair ...

Parties in peer review hearings can present a wide range of relevant evidence, regardless of its admissibility in a court of law.  But California has passed a new “apology law” that modifies that standard, erecting a potential hurdle for medical staffs to admit relevant evidence against practitioners in peer review hearings.

Under California law, statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident are inadmissible in civil trials.  (Evid. Code, § 1160.)  ...

While hospital medical staffs have traditionally handled most of California’s peer review activity, recent trends are forcing more and more medical groups to wrestle with reporting and fair hearing obligations when disciplining physicians—or else face costly litigation from doctors and six-figure fines from the Medical Board of California.

Broadly speaking, peer review is how healthcare entities—including medical groups—determine whether a physician is qualified to practice in a particular healthcare setting and perform ongoing assessments of that ...