Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Sosa v. Board of Mgrs.

2007-09-15T22:36:27Z

Rbeach: New page: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The case was remanded and the District Court was to determine if Dr. Sosa was afforded due ...

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision.

The case was remanded and the District Court was to determine if Dr. Sosa was afforded due process.

The Court noted there is no constitutional right for physicians to be admitted to hospitals based solely on their credentials. Hayman v. Galveston, 273 U.S. 414 (1927). While Dr. Sosa did meet the requirements of graduating from an approved school, licensing from the State of Texas and practicing in a community near the hospital, the Court did not feel this "stated triad confers an unconditional right to hospital privileges if the Hospital Board chooses to exact additional standards reasonably related to the operation of the hospital." Sosa v. Board of Managers of Val Verde Memorial Hospital, 437 F.2d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 1971).

In the case at bar, the Board of Managers of the Val Verde Memorial Hospital required additional criteria, which they felt Dr. Sosa did not meet. In Foster v. Mobile County Hospital Board, 398 F.2d 227 (1968), the Fifth Circuit had previously held that admissions to hospitals could be denied if there were "any reasonable basis, such as the professional and ethical qualifications of the physicians or the common good of the public and the Hospital." Id at 230.

In conclusion, the Court reasoned that "it is the Board, not the court, which is charged with the responsibility of providing a competent staff of doctors."

Judge Goldberg delivered the opinion of the Court.

Rogers v. Columbia/HCA of Central Louisiana, Inc.

2007-09-15T21:11:27Z

Rbeach: New page: Here, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed plaintiff's suit, which a...

Here, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed plaintiff's suit, which asserted the following:
<br />
<blockquote>
antitrust violations of the Sherman Act (Counts One, Two, and Three), that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3715.3 is unconstitutional (Count Four), violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count Five), violation of the HCQIA, § 11111 (Count Six), and defamation (Count Seven). Rogers seeks injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief.
</blockquote>

When proper, immunity is granted for physician [[peer review]] committees under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA).

Summary Judgment is required when <blockquote>
"the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
</blockquote> Rogers v. Columbia/HCA, 971 F. Supp. 229, 233 (W.D. La. 1997).

Judge F. A. Little, Jr., delivering the opinion of the Court found that:

1. All defendants were immune from suit under HCQIA as they were part of "professional review body." Id. <br />
2. Contrary to plaintiff's claim, § 11151(9) does not "require that a "professional review action" necessarily involve consultation with a sub-specialist in the same field as the physician being reviewed." Id at 234.<br />
3. Standards of HCQIA § 11112(a) were met: reasonable belief, reasonable effort to obtain facts; adequate notice and hearing, and reasonable belief after reasonable effort.<br />
4. HCQIA does not provide for a private right of action. Congress, in enacting HCQIA, merely intended to protect the professional peer review committees from suits.<br />

Reicheneder v. Skaggs Drug Ctr.

2007-09-15T20:05:59Z

Rbeach: New page: Here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in favor of appellee/plaintiff ...

Here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in favor of appellee/plaintiff customer. Appellant sought reversal of the Order of the District Court, which awarded plaintiff damages for malicious prosecution and/or false imprisonment and slander.

Judge Lewis R. Morgan delivered the opinion of the Court, which held as follows:

1) Because the jury did not find malice, the issue malicious prosecution was moot;
<br />
2) Since the District Court awarded damages for malicious prosecution and/or false imprisonment, plaintiff's recovery was correct;<br />
3) Texas law defines false imprisonment as the "direct restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another, without adequate legal justification." Reicheneder v. Skaggs Drug Center, 421 F.2d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1970);<br />
4) In the case at bar, the false imprisonment began when, under false information (albeit good faith), the police took custody of the alleged thief;<br />
5) Recovery based on slander must not be reversed unless there "is clear showing of excessiveness or impropriety on the part of the jury." Id at 313. There was no such excessiveness shown.

Main Page

2006-11-22T13:45:36Z

Rbeach:

<big>'''Welcome to Conservapedia'''</big>
<br><p>
Your Consevative Encyclopedia!
</p>

<div>Tired of the '''LIBERAL BIAS''' every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice
out on the internet!</div>

Main Page

2006-11-22T13:45:05Z

Rbeach:

<big>'''Welcome to Conservapedia'''</big>
<br><p>
Your Consevative Encyclopedia!
<p>

<div>Tired of the '''LIBERAL BIAS''' every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice
out on the internet!</div>

Conservapedia:About

2006-11-22T02:36:47Z

Rbeach:

Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!!