Defamation lawsuits may have chilling effect on peer review

A physician who filed a defamation lawsuit says doctors who believe they are wrongly investigated deserve a legal recourse.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. March 1, 2004.

Organized medicine fears that Connecticut doctors will be less willing to report peers they think might be jeopardizing good patient care and less likely to participate in investigations into their colleagues' behavior if a Connecticut Appellate Court decision stands.

In a 2-1 ruling last year, the state's second-highest court gave a physician the go-ahead for a civil lawsuit against several doctors and a hospital he claims, among other things, defamed his reputation when they gave their opinions about his emotional health to the state Dept. of Health.

The physician, psychiatrist Mohinder Chadha, MD, so far has successfully argued that doctors who participate in "quasi-judicial" proceedings aren't entitled to absolute immunity when they provide information about a colleague. Dr. Chadha believes that denying absolute immunity is needed to prevent doctors from falsely reporting a colleague.

Traditionally, though, physicians who participate in hospital peer review or state investigations into physician conduct have been granted absolute immunity.

The American Medical Association and Connecticut State Medical Society argue that it's critical that the protection remain.

"To protect the public, physicians need to report potential problems and assist with investigations," said Michael D. Neubert, the Connecticut attorney who wrote a brief that the AMA and CSMS filed urging the Connecticut Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling.

"Our concern is that [not providing absolute immunity] could have a chilling effect on physicians' willingness to independently report another physician or to cooperate with a department when it is trying to investigate a physician and their conduct," Neubert said.