Vernon Johnson v. SSM Healthcare System, No. 14-1397 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - Health Care Qualifty Improvement Act. No basis for overturning the district court's determination that SSM was entitled to HCQIA immunity, because appellant did not satisfy burden of producing evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the peer review process failed to meet HCQIA's standards. Judgment of district court is summarily affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1397 ___________________________ Vernon L. Johnson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. SSM Healthcare System lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: November 14, 2014 Filed: November 20, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dr. Vernon L. Johnson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his state-tort suit for damages arising from revocation of his hospital 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. privileges; his suit was removed to federal court under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). Upon de novo review, we find no basis for overturning the district court’s determination that SSM was entitled to HCQIA immunity, because Dr. Johnson did not satisfy his burden of producing evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the peer review process failed to meet HCQIA’s standards. See Lee v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 408 F.3d 1064, 1070-71 (8th Cir. 2005).2 The judgment of the district court is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Dr. Johnson’s pending motion is granted. ______________________________ 2 We decline to address the matters Dr. Johnson raises for the first time in his opening brief, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004), or in his reply brief, see Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
