Court rules hospital wrongly removed physician’s privileges
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, January 29, 2009
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
The Montana Supreme Court ruled that St. James Healthcare in Butte wrongly removed Jesse Cole, MD’s privileges, affirming the lower court’s decision. In the ruling, the justices noted that the organization’s bylaws acted as a contract between St. James and Cole. St. James’ actions, when it revoked Cole’s privileges, did not follow the bylaws and wrongfully broke the contract.
Additionally, the supreme court ruled that the lower court was right to issue an injunction to restore Cole’s privileges. “The court’s injunction protects both Dr. Cole’s patients and his professional reputation, at a minimal cost to St. James,” the ruling stated.
Click here to read more about Cole v. St. James Healthcare.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Comments
0 comments on “Court rules hospital wrongly removed physician’s privileges ”
Related Products
-
Credentialing Resource Center
CRC is now available online! Receive updates up to four days earlier than the print version and save on shipping costs.
-
Credentialing and Peer Review Legal Insider
The Credentialing and Peer Review Legal Insider provides the latest 'how-to' techniques, and practical 'working tools' to...
-
Assessing the Competency of Low-Volume Practitioners:
The Joint Commission requires that hospitals verify physician competence using performance data. Yet organizations often...
-
Core Privileges for Physicians:
This comprehensive resource combines a how-to manual with downloadable forms to help you develop and implement the most...
-
The Greeley Guide to Medical Staff Bylaws, Third Edition
More than just boilerplate language, this easy-to-use resource empowers you with implementation strategies, tools, and...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched