Burrowes v. Northside Hosp.

The federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act provides legal immunity from damages from actions taken under the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care, after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter, after adequate notice and hearing procedures and in the reasonable belief that the action was warranted by the facts known, after such reasonable effort to obtain the facts and meeting the proceeding requirement.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Dr. Celio O. Burrowes, a bariatric surgeon, challenges Northside Hospital’s peer review decision to suspend and revoke his medical staff privileges. The facts are not in dispute. Following the summary suspension of some of Burrowes’ privileges in October 2003 and the summary suspension and recommendation for termination of all of his clinical privileges in January 2004, Burrowes sought and was given a hearing before Northside Hospital’s Fair Hearing Committee. The Fair Hearing Committee held its hearing over 11 sessions, during which it reviewed extensive documents and heard testimony from Burrowes and his witnesses and from the Northside Hospital Medical Executive Committee and its witnesses. The Fair Hearing Committee also heard arguments of counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Fair Hearing Committee issued a Report and Decision, which unanimously concluded that the Northside Hospital peer review action “was not arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious but was an appropriate corrective action to protect the welfare of patients at Northside Hospital.” Burrowes appealed this decision to an Appellate Review Committee at Northside Hospital. After argument from counsel and receiving further testimony and documents from Burrowes, the Appellate Review Committee unanimously supported the Fair Hearing Committee decision. On February 6, 2006, the Northside Board of Directors accepted the recommendation of the Appellate Review Committee, upholding the summary suspension of Burrowes’ clinical privileges and terminating Burrowes’ medical staff privileges at Northside Hospital. Burrowes then filed the present lawsuit.

Northside Hospital moved for summary judgment, contending it is immune from liability for monetary damages under the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act1 and from civil liability under Georgia’s peer review statute.2 The trial court granted Northside Hospital’s motion for summary judgment, and Burrowes appeals. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

Burrowes v. Northside Hosp.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report