http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/dr-lawrence-m-poliner-v-presbyterian-hospital-update/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dr-lawrence-m-poliner-v-presbyterian-hospital-update Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 27 May 2012 05:00:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/dr-lawrence-m-poliner-v-presbyterian-hospital-update/comment-page-1/#comment-26134 Update: Lawrence Poliner v. Texas Health Systems appeal Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:23:33 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4084#comment-26134 [...] For this, Poliner sued for defamation and under federal antitrust law, alleging that other cardiologists were trying to dominate the market and prevent his competition. The five-month suspension had federal immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. (just one of many federal tort reforms that promote safety), but the trial court held that the 29-day limited-privileges created a cause of action that should go to a jury. Poliner lost $10,000 in income over that time “but was awarded more than $90 million in defamation damages, nearly all for mental anguish and injury to career. The jury also awarded $110 million in punitive damages”–despite the fact that Poliner would have to prove damages were caused by the allegedly unprivileged temporary limitation rather than by the five-month suspension. We covered the initial $366 million verdict in 2004, the outraged medical blogosphere reaction, and the remittitur to a still ludicrous $22.5 million in 2006. [...] [...] For this, Poliner sued for defamation and under federal antitrust law, alleging that other cardiologists were trying to dominate the market and prevent his competition. The five-month suspension had federal immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. (just one of many federal tort reforms that promote safety), but the trial court held that the 29-day limited-privileges created a cause of action that should go to a jury. Poliner lost $10,000 in income over that time “but was awarded more than $90 million in defamation damages, nearly all for mental anguish and injury to career. The jury also awarded $110 million in punitive damages”–despite the fact that Poliner would have to prove damages were caused by the allegedly unprivileged temporary limitation rather than by the five-month suspension. We covered the initial $366 million verdict in 2004, the outraged medical blogosphere reaction, and the remittitur to a still ludicrous $22.5 million in 2006. [...]

]]>