Sternberg v. Nanticoke Memorial Hospital, Inc., 15 A.3d 1225

Sternberg, an orthopedic surgeon, was on Nanticoke Memorial Hospital's medical staff from 1999 to 2008 and persistently engaged in disruptive behavior that generated frequent complaints from staff, patients, and physicians.
A 2006 accommodation exempted Sternberg from night on-call duties due to a psychiatric condition, creating tension with hospital call requirements for Level 8 trauma status.
Two MEC meetings in July 2006 recommended revoking Sternberg's staff appointment and privileges due to a continuing disruptive pattern; warnings stated that further incidents could trigger immediate suspension.
On October 13, 2006, Sternberg brought a newspaper reporter into an operating room under false pretenses, prompting a precautionary suspension based on disruption and infection risk, even though the reporter caused no evident harm.
The hospital offered a leave of absence; Sternberg accepted a leave and later returned to work after conditions; he resigned in January 2008 and filed suit alleging tortious interference, defamation, and staff bylaws claims, with appellees seeking HCQIA-based attorneys’ fees; the Superior Court granted summary judgment to appellees on immunity but denied Sternberg’s fee challenges.
The appellate court affirmed immunity but reversed the fee award, remanding for further action consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HCQIA immunity applies to the suspension	Sternberg argues the MEC failed to reasonably obtain facts and lacked a basis for imminent danger	Appellees contend the action met HCQIA standards and is presumptively immune	Immunity applies under HCQIA standards
Whether the Delaware Peer Review Act immunizes the individual appellees	Argues good faith and absence of gross or wanton negligence not established	Defense asserts presumption of good faith and no gross negligence	Delaware peer review immunity applies to individual appellees
Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees	Sternberg contends fees were inappropriate given the record and liability standards	Appellees maintain fees were justified due to frivolous or bad-faith conduct	Trial court erred; fee award reversed and remanded

Manzetti v. Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh, 565 Pa. 471 (Pa. 2001) (disruptive behavior and privilege revocation context in peer review)
Poliner v. Texas Health Systems, 537 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2008) (HCQIA immunity standards and reasonableness of investigation)
Yashon v. Hunt, 825 F.2d 1016 (6th Cir. 1987) (HCQIA-related considerations in peer review actions)
Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994) (HCQIA immunities and imminent danger standard)
Sugarbaker v. SSM Health Care, 190 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1999) (disruptive behavior and patient care implications in peer review)
Brown v. United Water Delaware, Inc., 3 A.3d 272 (Del. 2010) (Delaware appellate treatment of related issues in peer review)