You read that correctly:  the hospital fired the physician who did the reviewing in a medical staff peer review proceeding.  Hospital executives present at the proceeding felt the reviewing physician was too harsh in questioning the physician under review.  They reported it to administration, and the result was termination of the reviewing physician for disruptive behavior.

He didn’t take it lying down.  He sued the hospital for damages, basing his argument on the state peer review statute.  His reasoning was that the statute mandates confidentiality for peer review proceedings.  So the hospital’s use of information gained at the proceeding—namely, its witnessing of his harsh questioning of the doctor under review—was a violation of the statute.  And, he reasoned, a person who is damaged by that violation has a private right of action against the violator.  Otherwise, what good is the mandate of confidentiality?

The jury agreed and awarded him both compensatory and punitive damages.  The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed, and the New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari.

On February 19 that court affirmed the physician’s victory.  The court found an “implied” private right of action in the peer review statute’s mandate of confidentiality.  It also noted that the plaintiff, as a reviewer in the proceeding, was clearly within the class of individuals the statute was designed to protect.

The case is Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic, 2015 BL 42307 (N.M. Feb. 19).