of before the meeting — had raised its voice significantly. Dr. Gomez says he stood up imme-
“Remember: Peer review isn’t meant to be a smear campaign or a witch hunt. It is meant to evaluate and to improve the care that we provide the patients.”
diately and called the data false and invalid — numbers that didn’t have the Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ (STS’) gold-standard stamp of approval. “It was very difficult. Everyone in
the room knew who this was directed at,” Dr. Gomez said. “And it was a low point in my career, no doubt.” But an opinion the Texas Supreme
Court issued in May is a high point, not only for Dr. Gomez but also for other physicians who believe business competitors or a hospital’s administra- tors are using every means available to destroy their reputation. The high court’s decision essentially upheld an earlier Harris County District Court decision allowing Dr. Gomez to obtain key documents that he believes will prove the smear campaign’s existence.
TMA SUPPORTS DR. GOMEZ A few months after the November 2011 meeting, Dr. Gomez resigned his privileges at Memorial Hermann. He then sued the Memorial Hermann Hospital System, an affiliated physi- cian network, Memorial Hermann Memorial City Chief Executive Officer Keith Alexander, and surgeon Michael P. Macris, MD, in Harris County Dis- trict Court for business disparagement, defamation, tortious interference with prospective relations, and improper restraint of trade. As part of that suit, Dr. Gomez attempted to compel the release of what Memorial Hermann claimed were medical peer review documents. Dr. Gomez believed the records would provide evidence of the smear campaign. Robert Swift, an attorney for all defendants, did not respond to Texas Medicine’s request for an interview. Memorial Hermann told Texas Medi- cine the system would not comment because of the ongoing litigation. Medical peer review records are
generally confidential, but the Texas Occupations Code allows for an ex- ception to require disclosure if a judge
64 TEXAS MEDICINE August 2015
finds that an alleged peer review com- munication is “relevant to an anticom- petitive action.” Memorial Hermann’s actions qualified as anticompetitive, Dr. Gomez claimed, because the hos- pital engineered its smear campaign to undercut his surgical business as he prepared to transition some of it to a new, competing hospital. Accepting the defense’s contention
that all the documents at issue be- longed to medical peer review com- mittees, the district court reviewed the privileged documents and ordered the hospital to produce many of the records. After that order, Memorial Her-
mann took its case all the way to the Supreme Court of Texas to keep the records confidential. When that hap- pened, Dr. Gomez approached the Texas Medical Association and its Pa- tient-Physician Advocacy Committee for help. The committee heard from both sides before TMA filed a friend- of-the-court brief supporting Dr. Go- mez’s case. The Supreme Court’s decision es-
sentially upheld the district court rul- ing, compelling disclosure of most of the peer review documents the origi- nal decision ordered for release. “It was a very important win for my-
self and for all doctors, I believe,” Dr. Gomez said. The high court’s decision to uphold
the exception and allow release of the records was one that Susan Pike, MD, called “spectacular from our stand- point.” Dr. Pike was chair of TMA’s Patient-Physician Advocacy Commit- tee when Dr. Gomez sought the com- mittee’s help. “Peer review serves a very impor-
tant function for physicians, and it protects those physicians participat- ing in the peer review process as well as the physicians who are being re- viewed,” Dr. Pike said. “And remem- ber: Peer review isn’t meant to be a smear campaign or a witch hunt. It is meant to evaluate and to improve the care that we provide the patients.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76