(a) The granting or denial of privileges to practice in hospitals to physicians licensed under Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, Article 1, dentists, optometrists, and podiatrists and the scope and delineation of such privileges shall be determined by the governing body of the hospital on a non-discriminatory basis. Such determinations shall be based upon the applicant's education, training, experience, demonstrated competence and ability, and judgment and character of the applicant, and the reasonable objectives and regulations of the hospital, including, but not limited to appropriate utilization of hospital facilities, in which privileges are sought. Nothing in this Part shall be deemed to mandate hospitals to grant or deny to any such individuals or others privileges to practice in hospitals, or to offer or provide any type of care.
(b) The procedures to be followed by a licensed hospital in considering applications of dentists, optometrists, and podiatrists for privileges to practice in such hospitals shall be similar to those applicable to applications of physicians licensed under Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, Article 1. Such procedures shall be available upon request.
(c) In addition to the granting or denial of privileges, the governing body of each hospital may suspend, revoke, or modify privileges.
(d) All applicants or individuals who have privileges shall comply with all applicable medical staff bylaws, rules and regulations, including the policies and procedures governing the qualifications of applicants and the scope and delineation of privileges.
(e) The Department shall not issue or renew a license under this Article unless the applicant has demonstrated that the procedures followed in determining hospital privileges are in accordance with this Part and rules of the Department. (1981, c. 659, s. 10; 1983, c. 775, s. 1; 1987, c. 859, s. 18; 1989, c. 446; 1997-75, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Lohrmann v. Iredell Mem'l Hosp. Inc., 620 S.E.2d 258 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 18× “Lohrmann alleged breach of contract, failure to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-85, and violation of his rights to substantive and procedural due process of law.”
Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Servs. Corp., 488 S.E.2d 284 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 9× “Specifically it argues that because it is required by statute to have bylaws governing the suspension and termination of a physician’s privilege to practice in hospitals, see N.”
Claycomb v. HCA-Raleigh Cmty. Hosp., 333 S.E.2d 333 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “131E-85, requires a privately owned hospital to review the qualifications of a podiatrist applying for staff privileges even though the hospital administration has decided to close the medical staff to additional podiatrists. The trial court ruled that G.”
Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp. Inc., 731 S.E.2d 462 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “As this Court has noted, [b]y statute, regulation, and case law, the authority to make corrective action decisions rests with the governing body of a hospital. It is not the role of this Court to substitute our judgment for that of the hospital governing body, which has the…”
Cohn v. Wilkes Gen. Hosp., 767 F. Supp. 111 (W.D.N.C. 1991).
· cites it 4× “(See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 131E-85(a), hospital’s board of trustees authorized to make decisions on grants, denials, and scope of privileges).”
Coastal Neuro-Psychiatric Assocs., P.A. v. Onslow Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 607 F. Supp. 49 (E.D.N.C. 1985).
· cites it 4× “(16) To establish procedures for health care providers to secure the privilege of practicing within any hospital operated by the authority pursuant to Part B of Article 5 of this Chapter; (17) To establish reasonable rules governing the conduct of health care providers while on…”
Kohn v. Firsthealth of the Carolinas, Inc., 775 S.E.2d 926 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 22× “Section 131E-85 of our General Statues provides that [t]he granting or denial of privileges to practice in hospitals to physicians .”
Cohn v. Wilkes Reg'l Med. Ctr., 437 S.E.2d 889 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiff argues that by not including chiropractors within this statute, or without enacting a similarly worded statute, the legislature articulated a different state policy concerning the profession of chiropractic, rather than one which would have allowed the denial of…”
Nadendla v. WakeMed (E.D.N.C. 2020).
· cites it 7× “” N.C. Gen. Stat § 131E-85; Claycomb v. HCA-Raleigh Cmty.”
Jadali v. Alamance Reg'l Med. Ctr., 399 F. Supp. 2d 675 (M.D.N.C. 2005).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 131E-85. However, the court in Virmani did state that a contract could be formed where a hospital offers, and a doctor accepts, privileges.”
Se. Anesthesiology Consultants, Pllc v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 2018 NCBC 60 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to statute, hospitals must determine whether to grant a physician admitting privileges “based upon the applicant’s education, training, experience, demonstrated competence and ability, and judgment and character of the applicant, and the reasonable objectives and…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-85(a): 6 cases
Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Servs. Corp., 488 S.E.2d 284 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
“Specifically it argues that because it is required by statute to have bylaws governing the suspension and termination of a physician’s privilege to practice in hospitals, see N.”
Cohn v. Wilkes Gen. Hosp., 767 F. Supp. 111 (W.D.N.C. 1991).
“(See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 131E-85(a), hospital’s board of trustees authorized to make decisions on grants, denials, and scope of privileges).”
Coastal Neuro-Psychiatric Assocs., P.A. v. Onslow Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 607 F. Supp. 49 (E.D.N.C. 1985).
“(16) To establish procedures for health care providers to secure the privilege of practicing within any hospital operated by the authority pursuant to Part B of Article 5 of this Chapter; (17) To establish reasonable rules governing the conduct of health care providers while on…”
Cohn v. Wilkes Reg'l Med. Ctr., 437 S.E.2d 889 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
“Plaintiff argues that by not including chiropractors within this statute, or without enacting a similarly worded statute, the legislature articulated a different state policy concerning the profession of chiropractic, rather than one which would have allowed the denial of…”
Nadendla v. WakeMed (E.D.N.C. 2020).
“” N.C. Gen. Stat § 131E-85; Claycomb v. HCA-Raleigh Cmty.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-85(d): 1 case
Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Servs. Corp., 488 S.E.2d 284 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
“Specifically it argues that because it is required by statute to have bylaws governing the suspension and termination of a physician’s privilege to practice in hospitals, see N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.