Category Archives: - Sham Peer Review

The right way to have a medical malpractice case reviewed is by another physician who is a neutral party and has only the goal of improved quality medical care and the safety of the patient in mind. This is peer review with a noble cause. Sham peer review is when a physician reviews a medical malpractice case with bad intentions to cause damage to the defendant physician’s character and this peer reviewer does not have improved quality of medical care in mind.

Unscrupulous physicians can utilize sham peer review to try to remove good, quality physicians (whom they deem as competition) from their own way towards advancement. Hospitals are even striking out against diligent physicians who are “whistleblowers” (uncovering the truth about medical malpractice) and using sham peer review to end their medical careers.

An anonymous letter sent to state regulators has Los Angeles County authorities seeking access into two years of peer reviewed cases at a local hospital. The author of this anonymous letter claims that there was not enough peer review in regard to problems at the neonatal ICU. This letter stated that the peer review was missing and “doctors and staff were not meeting to discuss medical mistakes.”

The problem comes into play when you are a physician who is a victim of Sham Peer Review or who has been falsely accused of Disruptive Physician Behavior? Where do you turn to for help? Doctor’s Advocate can assist you.

The right way to have a medical malpractice case reviewed is by another physician who is a neutral party and has only the goal of improved quality medical care and the safety of the patient in mind. This is peer review with a noble cause. Sham peer review is when a physician reviews a medical malpractice case with bad intentions to cause damage to the defendant physician’s character and this peer reviewer does not have improved quality of medical care in mind.