Friday, February 8, 2008

Regulation Of Doctors

The Missouri Supreme Court issued an interesting opinion in a case where a medical doctor had sought injunctive relief from the suspension of his hospital privileges. The court held that a hospital is obligated to comply with its by-laws, but that there is no judicial review of hospital staffing decisions:

"Finally, and despite this Court's holding, it must be emphasized that the purpose of the regulation is to implement a system of medical staff peer review, rather than judicial oversight, and it is clear that final authority to make staffing decisions is securely vested in the hospital's governing body with advice from the medical staff. This is so because the notion underlying the internal governance structure required by the regulatory scheme is that medical professionals are best qualified to police themselves. 19 CSR 30-20.021(2)(C)12 ("The medical staff as a body or through committee shall review and evaluate the quality of clinical practice of the medical staff in the hospital in accordance with the medical staff's peer review function and performance improvement plan and activities."). This Court, then, will not impose judicial review on the merits of a hospital's staffing decisions, but will act only to ensure substantial compliance with the hospital's bylaws. In this case, a cause of action in equity will lie for that purpose, but the matter of substantial compliance is a factual dispute that can only be determined on remand."

(MIke Frisch)

Comparative Professions | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Regulation Of Doctors:


Post a comment