Summers v. Ardent Health Services L.L.C., 257 P.3d 943

Summers held psychiatric and internal medicine privileges at Lovelace Sandia Health System since 1995, with a permanent suspension in May 2005 after a multi-step peer-review process aligned with HCQIA.
The peer-review process began in 2002 after Patient A alleged Summers used sexually explicit language; an ad hoc committee investigated Patient A’s complaints and memory-pill distribution, yielding recommendations later adopted by the MEC.
In 2003, Patient B alleged Summers used inappropriate sexual language; a second ad hoc committee reviewed Patient B and eleven other patients, found issues, and Summers' internal medicine privileges were suspended while psychiatric privileges were placed on two-year probation; an adverse action report was filed with the NPDB.
Summers appealed through a Professional Review Committee (PRC) hearing, where he admitted issues with Patient A but challenged Patient B; the PRC found ongoing concerns with Summers’ standard of care and recommended continued suspensions; MEC adopted.
Summers’ appeal continued to the ARC and Board of Trustees; the ARC and Board upheld the permanent suspension, and a revised NPDB adverse action report was filed.
Summers sued for damages, Defendants moved for HCQIA immunity; district court denied summary judgment on reasonableness of fact-finding, Court of Appeals affirmed on the second immunity requirement, and the New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to address HCQIA immunity construction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the fact-finding was reasonably conducted	Summers argues process was unreasonable due to reliance on notes and missing interviews.	Ardent/Lovelace contend the total investigation was reasonable under HCQIA standards.	Immunity applies; fact-finding was reasonable as a whole.

Poliner v. Texas Health Sys., 537 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2008) (immunity depends on reasonable fact-finding, not perfect investigations)
Bryan v. James E. Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., 33 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 1994) (reliance on information gathered by others is presumptively reasonable)
Brader v. Allegheny Gen. Hosp., 167 F.3d 832 (3d Cir. 1999) (totality of fact-finding determines reasonableness; not per-issue focus)
N. Colo. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Summers, 27 P.3d 828 (Colo. 2001) (board's long, multi-panel investigation can be reasonable to obtain facts)
Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, 101 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 1996) (comprehensive, multi-stage review supports reasonableness)
Meyers v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 341 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2003) (one flawed piece does not defeat overall reasonableness)