Home |
Climate Change Project |
Table of Contents |
Courses | Search |
The key to this case is the distinction between the medical staff as an entity unto itself and the individual physicians who make up the medical staff. Although the trial court instructed the jury that the medical staff was an "unincorporated division" of the hospital and thus the two were a "single entity," incapable of conspiring, it was careful to distinguish the actions of the individual members of the medical staff:
In the case of Quinn v. Kent General Hospital,[100] the court expanded on this distinction between the medical staff and the individual physicians:
The holdings of the Weiss and Quinn courts represent the view that medical staff committees satisfy the legal definition of a conspiracy: an informal relationship between independent parties to carry out joint action. Conspiracy is generally used as a pejorative term, but here it is presumed that the conspiracy is for good, not evil. Nonetheless, it means that medical staff committees that act improperly are subject to the same federal laws that govern traditional illegal conspiracies.
97Weiss v. York Hospital. 745 F2d 786 (Cir 3 1984). [98]Weiss v. York Hospital. 745 F2d 786 (Cir 3 1984), p. 815. [99]Weiss v. York Hospital. 745 F2d 786 (Cir 3 1984), p. 813. [100]Quinn v. Kent General Hospital. 716 F Supp 1226 (1985). [101]Quinn v. Kent General Hospital. 716 F Supp 1226 (1985), p. 1242.The Climate Change and Public Health Law Site
The Best on the WWW Since 1995!
Copyright as to non-public domain materials
See DR-KATE.COM for home hurricane and disaster preparation
See WWW.EPR-ART.COM for photography of southern Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina
Professor Edward P. Richards, III, JD, MPH - Webmaster
Provide Website Feedback - https://www.lsu.edu/feedback
Privacy Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/privacy
Accessibility Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/accessibility