(Condensed from Medical Economics, May 4, 2007)
It used to be that an injured patient sued the treating physician. Today it gets more complicated when the patient also sues the hospital for credentialing the physician in the first place.
Since the 1960's, claims of negligent credentialing have become a growing problem for both hospitals and physicians. Today, at least 32 states recognize negligent credentialing claims.
Theories about the forces behind these growing claims differ. Some claim that these claims are protecting the public from bad credentialing by hospitals, while others see them as a plaintiffs' trick to line their pockets.
Some see more claims because there is more negligent credentialing taking place and see this as a test for states' peer review protections. Others simply say that it complicates and prejudices malpractice cases.
The reality is that such cases are easier to bring than to win, particularly in states with strong peer review protections. These make it difficult for plaintiffs to get the confidential information they need to make their case. Experts indicate that if a hospital can show it was following appropriate internal and The Joint Commission standards, most courts will not let the case go forward.
Currently the negligent credentialing issue is working its way through state court systems. In Minnesota, it has already reached that state's highest court. As the issue is continued to be fought, both physicians and hospitals have been put on notice that failure to take credentialing seriously can be legally risky. Regardless of whether a physician is less than truthful before a committee, a committee has been less than vigilant in the review, or the hospital staff has been less than candid in communicating with another hospital about a physician.
Ann H. O'Connell, a Sacramento, CA attorney who works closely with hospitals on physician credentialing says, "There are a lot of peer review protections out there for a reason; to promote full and frank discussion. To the extent that people either doing the reviewing or being reviewed become misleading and circumspect, they're abusing those protections."
Posts
