A neurosurgeon is claiming injury and damages from a for-profit hospital that notified him that it had denied his hospital admitting privileges. The physician claims the hospital used its peer-review process as a veil to deny access to the hospital and his subsequent ability to perform surgeries. Shortly after, the neurosurgeon began performing surgeries at an academic medical center where he was also named as chair of neurosurgery. The for-profit denies any misuse of its peer-review process and bases its decision on the multiple claims brought by other physicians and patients that the neurosurgeon was over treating patients in order to make more money for himself. The options for resolving this issue include defending the suit in court, going to arbitration, going to mediation, or structuring a settlement. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each resolution? When addressing the hospital board of directors, what option would you recommend? Why is your recommendation the best option?
Answers
Answer:
A neurosurgeon is claiming injury and damages from a for-profit hospital that notified him that it had denied his hospital admitting privileges. The physician claims the hospital used its peer-review process as a veil to deny access to the hospital and his subsequent ability to perform surgeries. Shortly after, the neurosurgeon began performing surgeries at an academic medical center where he was also named as chair of neurosurgery. The for-profit denies any misuse of its peer-review process and bases its decision on the multiple claims brought by other physicians and patients that the neurosurgeon was over treating patients in order to make more money for himself. The options for resolving this issue include defending the suit in court, going to arbitration, going to mediation, or structuring a settlement. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each resolution? When addressing the hospital board of directors, what option would you recommend? Why is your recommendation the best option?