Missoula, MT – The Montana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of St. Peter’s Health in Helena, siding with the hospital and several doctors in a legal dispute stemming from the firing of Dr. Tom Weiner, the hospital’s former oncologist. The court’s unanimous decision, issued on Tuesday, concludes a significant legal battle over the internal reviews that led to Weiner’s dismissal in 2020.
In a ruling penned by Justice Laurie McKinnon, the court affirmed a 2023 district court decision, granting St. Peter’s Health immunity from damages related to Weiner’s firing. The ruling emphasized that the hospital’s peer review process was both adequate and reasonable in light of the evidence presented regarding Weiner’s professional conduct.
The court found that the review conducted by St. Peter’s Health was thorough and that the hospital had made a reasonable effort to gather facts, leading to the conclusion that Weiner’s actions warranted disciplinary action to protect patient care and quality healthcare standards. The justices noted that the decision to revoke Weiner’s medical privileges was a necessary measure to maintain patient safety.
“We are unwilling to conclude that a failure to include every conceivable factor in a quality assurance review, or one or several mistaken attributes in a host of data, undermine an otherwise thorough investigation,” the ruling stated. “St. Peter’s Health and the external reviewers had ample evidence that Weiner’s patient care was substandard.”
The ruling also referenced the 1986 federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act, which protects medical institutions from liability when conducting peer reviews aimed at improving care. The court confirmed that St. Peter’s Health was within its rights to carry out its professional review, and the immunity extended to the hospital protected it from damages while allowing for potential claims outside the Act’s provisions.
The case centered on a series of allegations against Weiner, including improper manipulation of patients’ do-not-resuscitate orders, substandard care for non-cancer patients, and issues with prescribing high doses of opioids. One particularly troubling case involved a patient, Scot Warwick, who received chemotherapy for a lung cancer diagnosis that was never confirmed. Warwick later died from poisoning linked to chemotherapy drugs.
St. Peter’s Health also raised concerns about Weiner’s prescribing practices, noting that he had administered opioids inappropriately to patients, failed to monitor for signs of abuse, and neglected to maintain proper documentation or treatment plans. These actions, the court concluded, justified the hospital’s decision to suspend Weiner’s privileges in November 2020.
Despite Weiner’s assertions that the peer review process was flawed and that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, the court found that the evidence supported the hospital’s actions. Weiner had argued that external reviews were inadequately vetted and that he was denied the chance to challenge the patients or medical professionals involved in the review cases.
However, the justices ruled that the process was reasonable and that the hospital’s decision was consistent with protecting patient safety. “The core issue,” the ruling stated, “was whether the peer reviewers, with the information available to them at the time of the professional review action, would reasonably have concluded that their actions would restrict incompetent behavior or would protect patients.”
Attorneys representing Dr. Weiner did not respond to requests for comment following the ruling. However, St. Peter’s Health expressed satisfaction with the decision. Jacquelyn Tescher, the hospital’s public relations supervisor, stated in an email, “We stand by our commitment to providing the great care and experience our community deserves.”
While this ruling brings closure to the peer review dispute, the legal matters surrounding Weiner are far from over. In August 2023, St. Peter’s Health reached a $10.8 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over claims that the hospital had submitted false charges for Weiner’s patient care to federal health programs. A civil suit filed by U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich accusing Weiner of fraudulent billing remains ongoing.
This case serves as a reminder of the critical role peer review processes play in safeguarding healthcare standards and the legal complexities surrounding medical practitioners’ conduct in the face of allegations.
