• Government
• Profession
• Business
• Opinion
• Health

• Health reform
• H1N1
• P4P
• EMRs
• Medicare
• Liability
• AMA House
• » More

• Book Excerpt
• Business Pitch
• Meetings
• » More

• Contract Language
• Ethics Forum
• In the Courts
• Practice Management
• Technically Speaking
• » More

• Issue dates
• Regions
• Health plans
• Sections
• News briefs
• Columns
• Editorials
• Letters
• Writers
• Other years

• Search tips
• E-mail alert
• Radio
• RSS
• Mobile
• Subscribe
• Institutions
• Staff directory
• Advertising
• Permissions
• Reprints
• News media
• Site guide
• Useful links
• About
• Premium
• Contact

No absolute immunity for peer reviewers

A Connecticut court's ruling allows a psychiatrist to pursue a defamation lawsuit against several doctors and a local hospital.

By Mike Norbut, amednews staff. March 7, 2005.

• PRINT|
• E-MAIL|
• RESPOND|
• REPRINTS|
• SHARE

Connecticut physicians who participate in peer review or initiate investigations into a colleague's conduct, even if a report is made in good faith, could be forced to defend themselves against defamation lawsuits as the result of a February ruling from the state's highest court.

The state Supreme Court's unanimous decision to not guarantee absolute immunity to physicians could discourage some doctors from coming forward because of the threat of legal retribution and the potential cost of defending themselves in court, said the Connecticut State Medical Society.

With only qualified immunity granted to peer review participants, "all the reported physician needs to do is claim they were malicious and it wasn't a good-faith report, and they have to defend it," said New Haven, Conn., attorney Cam Staples, outside counsel for the CSMS. "The reality of this is it's already a substantial burden for physicians to come forward and report a colleague," Staples said. "Just the threat that they may have to defend a claim is not in the interest of public health."

But the doctor who filed the lawsuit said the ruling would help prevent abuses in peer review and investigations.

The Supreme Court ruling, which upholds an appellate court decision, allows psychiatrist Mohinder P. Chadha, MD to pursue a civil lawsuit against several physicians and a hospital. He claims that they defamed his reputation by giving their opinions of his emotional health to the state Dept. of Health.