Nelson Hardiman provides pro-active counsel, independent of in-house counsel, to consult on peer review matters, represent medical staff in hearings, conduct interviews and discovery before litigation, and provide legal representation of medical staff during litigation and on appeal.
We work with facilities across California to ensure compliance with all aspects of the peer review and credentialing process. Nelson Hardiman is a go-to firm in the medical staff arena.
Our Medical Staff Peer Review Team:
Miriam “Sarvnaz” Mackin
Attorney at Law
Related PracticesGovernment InvestigationsLitigationRegulatory ComplianceTransactions
Our Work Includes:
- University Healthcare System Revised and redesigned medical staff bylaws, policies, procedures of several academic medical centers to comply with statutory requirements and best practices; reconstituted committees and accompanying policies for physician health and professional conduct committees of the medical staff.
- Peer Review Hearing and Appeal A general surgeon on staff at a community-based hospital requested a hearing based upon a suspension of his medical staff privileges due to his treatment in four cases, all of which were reviewed and deemed to constitute practice below the standard of care and which posed an imminent danger to patients and potential patients. The hearing consisted of testimony by physician witnesses and experts on both sides. At the conclusion of the multi-year hearing, the judicial review panel decided that the suspension was reasonable and warranted in light of the facts. Upon appellate review by the hospital’s governing board, the decision was affirmed.
- Peer Review Hearing and Appeal Represented the Medical Staff of an academic medical center in a peer review hearing before a hearing panel and hearing officer. The subject physician-directed his residents to access medical records of a patient the physician was not treating and subsequently brought to the Med Center an outside unauthorized physician to look at the records and render an opinion as to the cause of the patient’s medical condition. The Med Staff charged the physician with violating HIPAA, Med Center policies, and abusing his authority over residents for the purposes of gaining improper access to the patient’s records for himself and enabling an outside physician to access medical records without the patient’s consent or other proper purpose. The physician maintained he was authorized to engage in these activities in his role as a teaching professor and therefore had the authority to bring in an outside physician to “investigate” an event, as part of the physician’s self-organized investigation team. The panel unanimously found in favor of the Med Staff and against the physician on all charges.