Peer Review Proceedings

.

Collora LLP represents medical professionals, including doctors, nurses, hearing panels and other medical professionals involved in peer review proceedings, helping them to avoid negative peer review outcomes or minimize the damage associated with the reviews.

Hospital-based peer reviews are common and can be deceptively informal. They can quickly snowball with devastating consequences to a medical professional’s reputation and practice. In some cases, they may even result in disciplinary sanctions by both the hospital and the relevant Board of Registration.

Collora lawyers have extensive experience dealing with hospital counsel and medical staff to minimize the chance of a negative outcome and the damaging collateral effects of any negative finding. Our lawyers help insure that clients are afforded the full panoply of rights that they are guaranteed by the facility’s by-laws and applicable precedents.

We successfully deal with a range of different issues associated with peer review proceedings, including:

  • Allegations of Disruptive Behavior

  • Allegations of Substandard Care

  • Loss of Privileges at Hospitals or Other Medical Facilities

  • Requirements of By-Laws or Due Process

  • Other Issues Associated with the Peer Review Statute (in MA, MGL, chapter 111, sections 203, etc.)

Representative Experience

  • Represented a radiation oncologist in a peer review proceeding at a major Boston teaching hospital. The physician’s clinical privileges had been revoked based on claims of substandard care by his department chief. Following multiple days of hearing, the physician’s clinical privileges were restored.

  • Represented obstetrician who had been summarily suspended from the medical staff. After a fair hearing, his staff membership was resumed with no restriction on his privileges.

  • Effectively counseled many physicians faced with preliminary peer review investigations, leading to findings of exoneration or conclusion that no report to the Board of Registration or the National Practitioner’s Data Bank was appropriate or necessary.

  • Successfully negotiated physician withdrawals from partnerships or practice groups in sensitive peer review situations, enabling physicians to recoup their investment in a venture and continue patient care without interruption.