[Source: Health Lawyers Weekly, Vol. VII, Issue 16 (April 24, 2009) - AHLA]
A physician could not maintain a breach of contract action against a hospital that revoked his privileges citing repeated concerns about unprofessional behavior that could harm patients, a federal trial court in Tennessee ruled.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee found the hospital was entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Immunity Act (HCQIA) for suspending and eventually revoking the physician’s privileges.
. . . .
In so holding, the court reviewed the standards for HCQIA immunity—i.e., that the professional review action was (1) taken in the reasonable belief that the action was in furtherance of quality healthcare; (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter, (3) after adequate notice and hearing procedures, and (4) in the reasonable belief that the action was warranted by the facts—and held plaintiff could not rebut the presumption of immunity. See 42 U.S.C. § 11112(a).
Continue reading
Abu-Hatab v. Blunt Mem’l Hosp., Inc., No. 3:06-CV-436 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2009)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Update: Ninth Circuit Denied En Banc Review of No ERISA Preemption Ruling
[Source: Health Lawyers Weekly, March 13, 2009, Vol. VII Issue 10 (AHLA)]
The Ninth Circuit rejected March 9 the Golden Gate Restaurant Association’s (GGRA’s) petition for rehearing en banc of a three-judge panel decision that found the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not preempt a San Francisco Ordinance setting new healthcare spending mandates for employers.
After a majority of the active Ninth Circuit judges declined to hear the closely watched case, GGRA said it would now finalize plans to move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.
. . . .
Eight judges from the Ninth Circuit dissented from the majority’s decision not to grant en banc review.
. . . .
Specifically, the dissent disputed the panel’s conclusion that the Ordinance was distinguishable from the Maryland law at issue in Fielder because the Ordinance creates a municipally funded health alternative as opposed to a tax on employers that was not earmarked towards their employees’ insurance.
Continue reading.
Read the concurring and dissenting opinions in Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 07-17370 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009).
The Ninth Circuit rejected March 9 the Golden Gate Restaurant Association’s (GGRA’s) petition for rehearing en banc of a three-judge panel decision that found the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not preempt a San Francisco Ordinance setting new healthcare spending mandates for employers.
After a majority of the active Ninth Circuit judges declined to hear the closely watched case, GGRA said it would now finalize plans to move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.
. . . .
Eight judges from the Ninth Circuit dissented from the majority’s decision not to grant en banc review.
. . . .
Specifically, the dissent disputed the panel’s conclusion that the Ordinance was distinguishable from the Maryland law at issue in Fielder because the Ordinance creates a municipally funded health alternative as opposed to a tax on employers that was not earmarked towards their employees’ insurance.
Continue reading.
Read the concurring and dissenting opinions in Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 07-17370 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009).
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Updates: Ninth Circuit's decision on the effect of ERISA on the San Fransico Healthcare Ordinance
Background issues here
"Ninth Circuit Finds No ERISA Preemption of San Francisco Ordinance Mandating Employer Healthcare Expenditures"
[October 3, 2008, Health Lawyers Weekly, Vol. VI, Issue 38, AHLA]
In a closely watched decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled September 30 that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not preempt a San Francisco Ordinance setting new healthcare spending mandates for employers.
Reversing a December 2007 lower court decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held the Ordinance's employer spending mandates did not establish an ERISA plan, nor did they have an impermissible “connection with” employers’ ERISA plans or make an impermissible “reference to” such plans.
View case
More
"DOL Argues ERISA Preempts San Francisco Ordinance Mandating Employer Healthcare Expenditures"
[April 11, 2008, Health Lawyers Weekly, Vol. VI, Issue 14, AHLA]
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Ninth Circuit arguing a lower court correctly found the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts a San Francisco ordinance setting new healthcare spending mandates for employers.
According to the brief, ERISA preempts the employer spending requirements in the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance, which went into effect January 1, 2008 for large employers, because “they mandate employee benefit structures or their administration” and “interfere with uniform plan administration.”
In its brief, DOL argues the Ordinance “purports to directly regulate the provision of health benefits by private employers to their employees and, in this manner, governs precisely the same relationships that Congress subjected to exclusive federal regulation under ERISA.”
View the brief.
More
"Justice Kennedy Refuses to Prevent San Francisco Ordinance Mandating Employer Healthcare Expenditures from Taking Effect During Appeal"
[February 29, 2008, Health Lawyers Weekly, Vol. VI, Issue 8, AHLA]
Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected February 21 an application by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA) asking him to prevent a San Francisco ordinance setting new healthcare spending mandates for employers from taking effect while the challenge to the ordinance is under appeal.
More
"Ninth Circuit Finds No ERISA Preemption of San Francisco Ordinance Mandating Employer Healthcare Expenditures"
[October 3, 2008, Health Lawyers Weekly, Vol. VI, Issue 38, AHLA]
In a closely watched decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled September 30 that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not preempt a San Francisco Ordinance setting new healthcare spending mandates for employers.
Reversing a December 2007 lower court decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held the Ordinance's employer spending mandates did not establish an ERISA plan, nor did they have an impermissible “connection with” employers’ ERISA plans or make an impermissible “reference to” such plans.
View case
More
"DOL Argues ERISA Preempts San Francisco Ordinance Mandating Employer Healthcare Expenditures"
[April 11, 2008, Health Lawyers Weekly, Vol. VI, Issue 14, AHLA]
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Ninth Circuit arguing a lower court correctly found the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts a San Francisco ordinance setting new healthcare spending mandates for employers.
According to the brief, ERISA preempts the employer spending requirements in the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance, which went into effect January 1, 2008 for large employers, because “they mandate employee benefit structures or their administration” and “interfere with uniform plan administration.”
In its brief, DOL argues the Ordinance “purports to directly regulate the provision of health benefits by private employers to their employees and, in this manner, governs precisely the same relationships that Congress subjected to exclusive federal regulation under ERISA.”
View the brief.
More
"Justice Kennedy Refuses to Prevent San Francisco Ordinance Mandating Employer Healthcare Expenditures from Taking Effect During Appeal"
[February 29, 2008, Health Lawyers Weekly, Vol. VI, Issue 8, AHLA]
Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected February 21 an application by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA) asking him to prevent a San Francisco ordinance setting new healthcare spending mandates for employers from taking effect while the challenge to the ordinance is under appeal.
More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)