No lawsuits until peer review is complete, Colorado Supreme Court rules

Justices said the early threat of going to court would undermine the mechanism.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Nov. 19, 2007.

Physicians say a Colorado Supreme Court ruling recognizes the importance of protecting ongoing peer review from the threat of lawsuits. But they say the decision likely will make it difficult for doctors to get relief from the courts when they believe abuses are taking place during the proceedings.

A unanimous high court ruled that physicians subject to peer review have to wait until the process runs its course before seeking relief in court over any alleged wrongful treatment.

That means Colorado Springs, Colo., surgical oncologist Jimmie R. Crow, MD -- who has gone three years without an initial hearing with Penrose-St. Francis Health Services peer review committee after it suspended his privileges -- will have to wait longer still to bring his lawsuit. He sued the hospital in 2006 for allegedly failing to follow hospital bylaws that require a fair and timely review, as well as other claims.

Allowing lawsuits to interrupt a peer review investigation would jeopardize the process, justices said.

Peer review immunity statutes are intended "to safeguard the peer review process by protecting participants who act in good faith," the opinion states. "A reviewing court cannot capably make that determination until the administrative remedies have been exhausted and a complete record has been developed" to accomplish a "meaningful" review.

Limited exceptions exist if it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that further administrative review by the agency would be futile," the court said.