Piedmont Healthcare Inc. v. Kowal

The trial court abused its discretion in granting an injunction based on its erroneous legal interpretation that, absent an appeal by either party, the hospital's Board of Directors acquiesced in and was bound by the staff Hearing Panel's recommendation.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This appeal is from a trial court’s order enjoining a hospital board’s decision to revoke a doctor’s clinical privileges. Because the injunction was based on an erroneous interpretation of the hospital’s bylaws, we reverse. The record shows that a 17-year-old patient suffered a burn to his hand while undergoing a nasal surgical procedure performed by Dr. Keith Kowal at Piedmont Fayette Hospital. After an investigation of the incident, the hospital’s Medical Executive Committee recommended that Kowal’s clinical privileges be revoked. Pursuant to Kowal’s request, the decision of the Medical Executive Committee was reviewed by the staff Hearing Panel, which recommended that Kowal’s clinical privileges be suspended for 120 days. The hospital’s Board of Directors then reviewed the matter and issued its final decision, setting aside the Hearing Panel’s recommendation, affirming the original recommendation of the Medical Executive Committee and thus revoking Kowal’s clinical privileges.

Kowal filed a lawsuit against Piedmont Healthcare, Inc., the hospital and its president, W. Darrell Cutts, seeking injunctive relief and damages. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that under hospital bylaws, since neither Kowal nor the Medical Executive Committee had appealed from the Hearing Panel’s recommendation, the Board “is deemed to have acquiesced in the . . . Hearing Panel’s recommendation and is bound by it.” Based on that ruling, the trial court entered an interlocutory injunction, rescinding the Board’s final decision and reinstating the Hearing Panel’s recommendation of a 120-day suspension. Piedmont Healthcare, the hospital and Cutts appeal.

Piedmont Healthcare Inc. v. Kowal

The trial court abused its discretion in granting an injunction based on its erroneous legal interpretation that, absent an appeal by either party, the hospital's Board of Directors acquiesced in and was bound by the staff Hearing Panel's recommendation.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report