Michigan high court lets physician sue over bad peer review

The ruling paves the way for the court to answer other questions, such as whether medical staff bylaws are a binding contract.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Sept. 18, 2006.

A Michigan internist's dispute with Mercy Memorial Hospital System in Monroe has opened the door for state physicians to bring claims for wrongful peer review against hospitals and peer review committees.

A Michigan Supreme Court ruling in the internist's lawsuit overturned nearly 25-year-old case law under which the courts said they didn't have the expertise to get involved in hospitals' staffing decisions. With that line of reasoning, the courts typically would reject doctors' claims that they had been disciplined unfairly in peer review proceedings, except in rare circumstances.

This time, however, the high court disagreed. It said the courts often are called upon to determine complex matters, and these situations are no different.

"Forgoing review of valid legal claims ... amounts to a grant of unfettered discretion to private hospitals to disregard the legal rights of those who are the subject of a staffing decision," Justice Robert P. Young Jr. wrote.

Justices recognized that Michigan's immunity statute does not protect the peer review committee if it acts with malice, specifically meaning that the committee acted with reckless disregard of the truth. The court went on to say that "participants are not protected if they are not performing evaluations with a focus on improving patient care."

The court also said the scope of peer review immunity does not extend to hospitals because they are not directly involved in peer review.

"Now that this law has been abolished, peer review is safer and can be performed on a fairer basis and for the well-being of the patient," said Monroe internist Bruce B. Feyz, MD, who sued Mercy Memorial.