Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:48:32.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Employment: Protecting Public Health Abrogates Due Process Requirement for Suspension Proceedings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Guillermo A. Montero
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Patel v. Midland Memorial Hospital & Medical Center, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant hospital did not violate the plaintiff's due process rights by suspending his clinical privileges without a pre-suspension hearing, where there were reasonable grounds for assuming that patient safety was at risk. Dr. P.V. Patel, a board-certified cardiologist, brought an action against Midland Memorial Hospital and several of its doctors, alleging that the suspension of his clinical privileges violated his right to a pre-suspension hearing; was the result of racial discrimination; and resulted in anticompetitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Midland's motion for summary judgment. The parties filed cross appeals, Dr. Patel on the ground that there were genuine issues of fact for all of his claims, and Midland on the ground that, with the exception of the civil rights claim, it was immune from all of Dr. Patel's claims under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA).

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Spring 2003 , pp. 167 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Patel v. Midland Memorial Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 298 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
See id. at 341.Google Scholar
See Patel v. Midland Memorial Hosp., No. M99CA159SS, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22088 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2000).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 11101–11152 (2003).Google Scholar
See Patel, 298 F.3d at 336.Google Scholar
See id. at 336–37.Google Scholar
See id. at 337–38.Google Scholar
Id. at 338.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Patel, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22088.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2003). Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of law, “subjects, or causes to be subjected,” a person “to the deprivation of [a constitutional right].” Id.; Patel, 298 F.3d at 339 n.13.Google Scholar
Patel, 298 F.3d at 339 (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985)).Google Scholar
Id. (citing Came v. Hardy, 943 F.2d 1406 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc)).Google Scholar
943 F.2d 1406 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc).Google Scholar
See Patel, 298 F.3d at 340.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at 341; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2003).Google Scholar
Patel, 298 F.3d at 344.Google Scholar
Id. at 342.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id. at 343.Google Scholar
Id. at 343–44 (quoting Rubinstein v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund, 218 F.3d 392, 400–01 (5th Cir. 2000)).Google Scholar
See id. at 344.Google Scholar
See id. at 345.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §§ 1–2 (2003); Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 15.05 (Vernon 2003).Google Scholar
See Patel, 298 F.3d at 345.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id. at 346.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at 347–48. The HCQIA provides immunity from damages to any person participating in a professional review action when the proceeding meets certain statutory requirements. See id. at 347; 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101–11152 (2003).Google Scholar
See Colantonio, M.A., “The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 and Its Impact on Hospital Law,” West Virginia Law Review, 91 (1988): 91–123, at 107.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar