Counsel for a health care provider defendant in a dispute over the quality of peer review presented complex arguments before the Pennsylvania Superior Court. For at least one justice, however, the issue might come down to the use of a comma.
Defense attorney John Conti of Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote told the justices during an oral argument session April 4 that allowing plaintiffs in the case Reginelli v. Boggs access to the requested review materials would have a chilling effect on rural hospitals contacting with specialty medical practices, and would ultimately be a detriment to the public.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
