This immunity extends to investigative activities as well as to any associated peer review hearing, whether or not it leads to a disciplinary (or other) action.
[5] Some physicians allege that sham peer review is often conducted in retaliation for whistleblowing, although one study in 2007 suggested that such events were rare.
In 1996, Khajavi, an anesthesiologist in Yuba City, California, disagreed with a surgeon over the appropriateness of cataract surgery for a patient and refused to attend during the procedure.
In 2000, the court held that Khajavi was not protected from termination on the basis of advocating for what he felt was medically appropriate care.
On May 15, 2001, the California Medical Association filed an amicus curiae brief to emphasize legal protections meant to prevent physicians being arbitrarily excluded from access to healthcare facilities based on mechanisms such as summary suspension without a speedy hearing.
[10] Roland Chalifoux, member of an advocacy organisation called the Semmelweis Society, had his medical license revoked in Texas in 2004 after numerous incidents including the death of a patient.
[11] Chalifoux subsequently secured permission to practice in West Virginia,[12] and alleges that the Texas board's actions constitute sham peer review.
[13] Before the trial, which began May 16, U.S. District Judge Philip Pro made a finding that Ellerton and UMC's medical staff had violated Williams' due process rights.
U.S. District Court Judge Edward Reed opined that, in Nevada, a physician's hospital privileges are a constitutionally protected property right.
[14] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then affirmed that Dr. Chudacoff's due process rights were violated by UMC.
PSOs were authorized to gather information to be analyzed by hospital administrators, nurses, and physicians as a tool for systems failure analysis.
They may be used by any healthcare entity except insurance companies, but must be registered with the AHRQ wing of the US Department of Health and Human Services.