Synergy - May/June 2013 - 12

industry feature

medical staff members should be FHC
members “when feasible,” and there
was evidence that no staff member was
available to serve .
The district court further ruled that
a departure from the hospital bylaws
was immaterial, provided that HCQIA’s
requirement for a fair proceeding
was met . This was so because HCQIA
establishes national standards for peer
review actions that, if met, entitle the
reviewers to immunity . The district court
further stated that “there is no statutory
requirement set forth in the HCQIA that
professional review activity or actions must
be conducted by physicians .”12
Meyers’ rulings on HCQIA’s third element
have since been relied upon in actions
involving disruptive physicians .
In Taylor v. Kennestone Hospital, Inc., a
physician had sexually harassed staff and
inappropriately touched patients .13 The
physician complained that notice procedures
had not been followed according to the
hospital’s bylaws . Relying on Meyers, the
court repeated that “HCQIA does not require
that hearing procedures satisfy hospitals’
bylaws in order for immunity to apply .”14
Further, Sternberg v. Nanticoke Mem’l
Hosp., Inc. involved the politicking surgeon
referenced above and a professional
review action where no hearing was
conducted .15 The court rejected the
physician’s arguments that the hospital’s
failure to follow its bylaws denied HCQIA
immunity because the court found that
the procedures followed were otherwise
reasonable for HCQIA purposes .

“Quality Health Care” Includes
General Behavior and Ethical
Conduct
The Meyers decisions, both from the district
court and the Sixth Circuit, made a key
finding concerning how disruptive behavior
alone can justify termination of privileges .
In Meyers, both courts ruled that
“general behavior and ethical conduct”
provide grounds for a professional
review action .16 This phrase has been
quoted verbatim ever since by courts in
response to another regular argument
by physicians: that disruptive behavior,
12

/

SYNERGY MaY/JUNE 2013

absent any actual patient injury, is not
enough to justify a summary suspension
or termination of privileges .
Indeed, the district court addressed this very
argument made by Meyers:
the behavior of Dr . Meyers had the
potential of affecting the health and
welfare of patients, despite the fact
that no patients were actually injured .
* * * LMH did not have to wait until
a patient was injured or a nurse
refused to work with Dr . Meyers . Its
concerns for quality health care were
reasonable and legitimate .17

Peyton v. Johnson City Medical Center, the
summary suspension of a physician for both
clinical and behavioral issues was upheld .18
Relying on the Meyers district court decision,
the court cited witness testimony about the
doctor’s inability to get along with many of
the hospital staff members, which the court
noted is “certainly a legitimate concern of
the hospital . Quality patient care demands
that doctors possess at least a reasonable
ability to work with others .”19
The Sixth Circuit’s decision was expressly
relied upon in Isaiah v. WHMS Braddock
Hospital Corp. There, the doctor argued that

In Meyers, both courts ruled that “general
behavior and ethical conduct” provide grounds
for a professional review action.
The district court’s granting of summary
judgment to LMH was relied upon even
before the Sixth Circuit had ruled . In

any concerns about his ethics and compulsive
behavior did not affect quality healthcare
as they were not related to his skills .20 The
Synergy - May/June 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Synergy - May/June 2013
