• E-mail
• Print
• RSS

CT court rejects absolute immunity for physicians in peer review

Credentialing Resource Center Connection, February 17, 2005

Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a decision released Feb. 15 that doctors who voiced their professional concerns about a colleague to an impaired physician program do not have the right, under state law, to absolute immunity from claims alleging malicious false statements (Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, Conn., No. SC 7029). The state high court found that state law giving qualified immunity to doctors active in peer review negated any assertion of absolute immunity that may have existed under state common law prior to passage of the qualified immunity statute.  According to the court, its conclusion was consistent with the sparse legislative history associated with the qualified immunity statute. This history showed that the state legislature did not intend to shield physicians from claims associated with malicious actions stemming from staff competition or jealousy, the court said.

Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!

• E-mail to a Colleague
• Print
• RSS
• Archive