FYI: I cannot comment on the acuracy of the following summary, but I thought I would post it on here since there's an ongoing discussion regarding Dr. Canady. The comments provided below were found at the following website: http://www.aana.com/resources.aspx?ucNa … mp;id=2324
I will try and provide the actual case soon.
Canady v Providence Hospital
The case of Canady v Providence Hospital, 942 F. Supp. 11 (D.C., 1996) is a collection of the legal remedies that are often used to attack the denial or restriction of privileges. Jerome Canady, MD, a surgeon, met with the representatives of a hospital in the District of Columbia, indicating that he wanted to perform vascular and thoracic surgery, as well as general surgery. Over the next few months, Dr Canady met with a number of physicians associated with the hospital, discussing various types of procedures that he wished to perform but, when viewed in retrospect, not necessarily being guaranteed that he would be allowed to do so. He finally received a letter from the president of the hospital informing him of his provisional appointment to the staff, but the letter was silent as to privileges. When Dr Canady inquired what his privileges were, the president of the hospital responded verbally that as far as she knew he had been granted everything he applied for. However, the president of the hospital was not the person authorized to grant privileges.
Not long after Dr Canady began operating at the new hospital, things went rapidly downhill. Four months after he began performing operations at the hospital he was sent a letter stating that the hospital would not schedule a patient for thoracic surgery if Dr Canady was the private primary surgeon. As a result of problems he was having with the hospital, he reviewed his credentials file and discovered, for the first time, that he had not been given thoracic or vascular privileges.
Consequently, Dr Canady retained a lawyer and brought suit against the hospital. This resulted in a settlement in which both sides appeared to save face. The suit was withdrawn, Dr Canady's privileges were reinstated, and Dr Canady agreed to furnish a written second opinion for certain cases. However, it turned out that this did not resolve the matter. Misunderstandings continued about Dr Canady's compliance, and Dr Canady did not get satisfactory answers to questions about his privileges. Matters continued largely unresolved until winter when there was another incident in which another staff physician questioned Dr Canady's competence. A proceeding for "corrective action" was instituted, and the process ultimately resulted in the suspension of Dr Canady's privileges. Dr Canady's suit is a catalog of legal theories that a practitioner can use to challenge the actions of a hospital in denying privileges.
The first legal theory is a claim that the action of the hospital is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act: "Every contract...or conspiracy in restraint of trade...is declared to be illegal." (15 USC