Randall v. Amisub of South Carolina

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Robert Randall, M.D., Appellant,

v.

Amisub of South Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Piedmont Medical
Center, Nathaniel Edwards, M.D., and Richard Patterson,
M.D., Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000913

Appeal From York County
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-076
Heard January 14, 2016 – Filed February 24, 2016

AFFIRMED

James Mixon Griffin, Griffin Davis, and Ariail Elizabeth
King, Lewis Babcock L.L.P., both of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Travis Dayhuff, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough,
LLP, and Monteith Powell Todd, Sowell Gray Stepp &
Laffitte, LLC, both of Columbia, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Dr. Robert Randall appeals the circuit court's granting of
summary judgment in favor of respondents Piedmont Medical Center, Dr.
Nathaniel Edwards, and Dr. Richard Patterson on Dr. Randall's claims the
respondents were liable for civil conspiracy and defamation after they summarily
suspended and ultimately revoked his surgery privileges at Piedmont. Dr. Randall
argues the circuit court erred in finding the respondents are immune from liability
under the federal Healthcare Quality Improvement Act. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Moore v. Williamsburg Reg'l
Hosp., 560 F.3d 166, 171, 175 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining the Act "provides
immunity from damages to participants in a 'professional review action' if the
action meets certain standards and follows certain procedures" and creates "a
statutory presumption that a professional review action meets the requirements for
immunity unless the presumption is rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence");
42 U.S.C.A. § 11111(a)(1) (2013) ("If a professional review action . . . of a
professional review body meets all the standards specified in section 11112(a) of
this title, . . . (A) the professional review body, (B) any person acting as a member
or staff to the body, (C) any person under a contract or other formal agreement
with the body, and (D) any person who participates with or assists the body with
respect to the action, shall not be liable in damages under any law of the United
States or of any State . . . with respect to the action."); 42 U.S.C.A. § 11112(a)
(2013) ("For purposes of the protection set forth in section 11111(a) . . . , a
professional review action must be taken—(1) in the reasonable belief that the
action was in the furtherance of quality health care, (2) after a reasonable effort to
obtain the facts of the matter, (3) after adequate notice and hearing procedures are
afforded to the physician involved or after such other procedures as are fair to the
physician under the circumstances, and (4) in the reasonable belief that the action
was warranted by the facts known after such reasonable effort to obtain facts and
after meeting the requirement of paragraph (3). A professional review action shall
be presumed to have met the preceding standards necessary for the protection set
out in section 11111(a) of this title unless the presumption is rebutted by a
preponderance of the evidence."); 42 U.S.C.A. § 11112(c)(2) (2013) (providing for
purposes of immunity under the Act, nothing in section 11112 shall be construed
as "precluding an immediate suspension or restriction of clinical privileges, subject
to subsequent notice and hearing or other adequate procedures, where the failure to
take such an action may result in an imminent danger to the health of any
individual").

AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.