100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached 4.2 TrustPilot
logo-home
Exam (elaborations)

CPMSM - Key Credentialing Cases UPDATED ACTUAL Exam Questions and CORRECT Answers

Rating
-
Sold
-
Pages
6
Grade
A+
Uploaded on
17-03-2025
Written in
2024/2025

CPMSM - Key Credentialing Cases UPDATED ACTUAL Exam Questions and CORRECT Answers Darling v. Charleston Memorial Community Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER have proper supervision; Case set aside the Charitable Immunity Doctrine. - Failure to Hospital liable for negligent treatment resulting in amputation of teenager's leg nurses failed to monitor; physician failed to consult; hospital claimed that charitable immunity doctrine limited damages to its insurance.

Show more Read less
Institution
CPMSM
Course
CPMSM









Whoops! We can’t load your doc right now. Try again or contact support.

Written for

Institution
CPMSM
Course
CPMSM

Document information

Uploaded on
March 17, 2025
Number of pages
6
Written in
2024/2025
Type
Exam (elaborations)
Contains
Questions & answers

Subjects

Content preview

CPMSM - Key Credentialing Cases
UPDATED ACTUAL Exam Questions and
CORRECT Answers
Darling v. Charleston Memorial Community Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - Failure to
have proper supervision; Case set aside the Charitable Immunity Doctrine.


Hospital liable for negligent treatment resulting in amputation of teenager's leg nurses failed to
monitor; physician failed to consult; hospital claimed that charitable immunity doctrine limited
damages to its insurance.


Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - Negligent
credentialing; Failure of initial credentialing process.


Hospital liable to patient injured by physician who had failed to disclose pending malpractice
cases and lied about privileges at other hospitals; should have verified information.


Elam v. College Park Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - Negligent Credentialing


Hospital liable for podiatrist's negligence; failed to obtain malpractice claims data although
medical records department aware of claims. Podiatrist.


Patrick v. Burget - CORRECT ANSWER - Anti-competitive peer review; HCQIA;
Violation of Federal Anti-trust Laws


Physicians conducted peer review for anti-competitive reasons liable for violating federal anti-
trust laws.


Robinson v. Magovern - CORRECT ANSWER - Hospitals May Determine Proper
Limitation on Competition Within the Hospital and Surrounding Areas - careful and thorough

, adherence to bylaws that contain objective criteria required. Denial of application is not a
restraint of trade.


MD brought antitrust suit because he was denied privileges. Hospital did this based on shortage
of OR space, unfavorable recommendation, failure to publish MD on seven other staffs and
would probably not be able to contribute to hospital teaching program.


Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center - CORRECT ANSWER - Disruptive Behavior Must
be Patient Care Related


Denial of application based on inability to work with others; no quality of care problems.


Rao v. Auburn General Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - Disruptive Behavior.
Personality May Be Considered If Affects Ability to Practice or Hospital Operations - personality
problems must affect the workings of the hospital.


Hospital denied privileges to MD after receiving reports from other hospitals on termination/
restriction of privileges. Other hospitals also reported substandard work and emotional instability


Boyd v. Albert Einstein Medical Center - CORRECT ANSWER - Ostensible agency;
MCO liable for practitioners action.


IPA-type HMO advertised as providing medical care held liable for member MD's negligence.


Harrell v. Total Health Care - CORRECT ANSWER - Negligent Credentialing; Failure to
Credential


State law granted immunity to non-profit health plans; MCO not liable for negligent
credentialing.


McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania - CORRECT ANSWER -
Duty to select and monitor providers; Negligent Credentialing; Ostensible Agency.

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
Reputation scores are based on the amount of documents a seller has sold for a fee and the reviews they have received for those documents. There are three levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold. The better the reputation, the more your can rely on the quality of the sellers work.
MGRADES Stanford University
View profile
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
1076
Member since
1 year
Number of followers
102
Documents
68972
Last sold
1 day ago
MGRADES (Stanford Top Brains)

Welcome to MGRADES Exams, practices and Study materials Just think of me as the plug you will refer to your friends Me and my team will always make sure you get the best value from the exams markets. I offer the best study and exam materials for a wide range of courses and units. Make your study sessions more efficient and effective. Dive in and discover all you need to excel in your academic journey!

3.8

171 reviews

5
73
4
30
3
46
2
8
1
14

Recently viewed by you

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their tests and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can instantly pick a different document that better fits what you're looking for.

Pay as you like, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions