The Montana Supreme Court sided with St. Peter’s Health and several doctors in a dispute involving Dr. Tom Weiner, a former oncologist at the Helena facility. Weiner challenged the internal reviews that led to his firing in 2020. The court, in a unanimous decision led by Justice Laurie McKinnon, affirmed that St. Peter’s holds immunity from damages linked to Weiner’s dismissal, as per a state district court ruling in 2023.
“The district court was correct when it concluded that [St. Peter’s Health] review was sufficient, that it had made a reasonable effort to obtain the facts, and that SPH had a reasonable belief that its action was necessary to protect patients and quality health care,” stated the ruling. This decision resolves one aspect of the ongoing feud between Weiner and the hospital.
According to court documents, Weiner was dismissed due to concerns about patient care and inadequate treatment, supported by a ProPublica investigation published in December. The justices confirmed the peer review of Weiner’s practices as appropriate.
The court cited the 1986 federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act, which shields peer review processes to enhance medical care quality. This immunity covers monetary claims but allows action for grievances beyond the Improvement Act, the ruling elaborated.
The peer review committee investigated Weiner for manipulating do-not-resuscitate orders, inadequate care for non-cancer patients, and issues in end-of-life treatment. “The professional review action in revoking Weiner’s privileges and memberships was reasonable and warranted due to the quantity and severity of Weiner’s inappropriate patient care,” the ruling declared.
The review included multiple case evaluations from internal and external sources about Weiner’s alleged medical errors, inadequate documentation, and opioid prescription practices. One notable case involved Scot Warwick, who received chemotherapy for unconfirmed lung cancer, resulting in his death from gemcitabine poisoning.
Further issues involved prescribing high-dose narcotics beyond clinical privileges and without proper patient monitoring or documentation. “Given these facts, which the peer reviewers had at the time of their decision, we have little difficulty concluding that the [credentials committee] reasonably believed — as any peer review body would under these circumstances — that the decision to summarily suspend Weiner on November 17, 2020, would further the quality of health care,” the ruling stated.
Weiner argued the review process was flawed, claiming improper vetting of external reviews and lack of opportunity to respond. However, the court deemed these arguments insufficient against the hospital’s immunity. “Weiner misunderstands the nature of the inquiry into whether a ‘reasonable effort’ was made to obtain the facts,” noted the decision, highlighting ample evidence of substandard care.
The core issue was whether peer reviewers, with available information, reasonably concluded their actions would prevent incompetence or protect patients. The justices ruled Weiner’s position lacked legal merit. A spokesperson for St. Peter’s Health expressed satisfaction with the ruling, emphasizing their commitment to high-quality care.
Additionally, in August, St. Peter’s Health settled a $10.8 million claim with the U.S. Department of Justice over false charges billed to federal health programs under Weiner’s care. A separate civil lawsuit by U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich against Weiner for fraudulent billing remains active.
—
Read More Montana News
