Coalition Files California Supreme Court Amicus Briefs In Support of Medical Staff Independence and Self-Governance September 13, 2012 Advocacy, AMA, CMA El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Med. Ctr, medical staff independence 0 In a strong show of broad support for medical staff independence and self-governance, 23 current and former chiefs of staff from throughout California have filed an amicus curiae brief with the California Supreme Court in El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Med. Ctr. SFMS/CMA and AMA have also filed a separate amicus brief in the case. The briefs argue that a hospital’s lay governing board is not qualified to engage in peer review and thus cannot directly or indirectly commandeer a medical staff’s peer review functions. In this case, the hospital board at Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center ignored and overrode the medical staff executive committee's (MEC) recommendation to reappoint a physician on staff. When the physician invoked his right to a joint review committee hearing to challenge the hospital’s termination of his privileges, the hospital unilaterally appointed the hearing officer and members of the review committee. Under the medical staff bylaws, however, only the MEC has authority to determine the joint review process, including the appointment of the hearing officer and joint review committee members. CMA and AMA argued in their amicus brief that the medical staff bylaws here must be strictly enforced in order to uphold the systemic safeguards of a fair and just peer review system. Under California and federal laws, CMA and AMA explained, the professionals on the medical staff have primary responsibility for all of the functions necessary to ensure patient safety and the competence of practitioners at a hospital. These functions, which include peer review, fall within the medical staff’s right to self-governance and independence. Hospital governing bodies have oversight authority, but cannot unnecessarily interfere with the medical staff’s self-governance functions, including peer review. The California Supreme Court decided to review this case last November. Briefing in the case is complete and a decision can be expected in the latter half of next year. Comments are closed.
