If you are a military medical provider (doctor, nurse, or other privileged provider), it is in your best interests to retain a lawyer upon notice of an abeyance, suspension, or quality assurance investigation (QAI). Such actions are only taken by military treatment facility (MTF) leadership upon notification of allegations of misconduct, impairment, or incompetence. Further, they are normally only taken after the commander has made an initial determination that the allegations are not baseless and require further inquiry. A provider will normally be taken out of clinical practice during the investigation in order to ensure patient safety.
The abeyance, suspension, or QAI is an indication that the adverse privileging action process has commenced, and any allegation could potential result in the loss of privileges at the military treatment facility and reporting of the adverse action to the National Practitioner Data Bank and state licensing authorities.
I recommend immediate retention of a lawyer who has experience in handling adverse privileging actions by the Navy, Army, or Air Force for two reasons. First, an attorney is one of the very few people with whom a provider can have confidential communications. All attorney-client communications are privileged and, except for very unusual circumstances, neither the attorney nor the client can be forced to disclose the substance of those conversations. Frank, confidential discussions can lead to developing a comprehensive strategy to obtain reinstatement of privileges.
Second, and closely related to the first reason, it is extremely important for a provider to understand that his or her actions following an abeyance or suspension, or statements made during a QAI, will impact the ultimate outcome of an adverse privileging action. Only in rare instances does an abeyance or suspension promptly result in reinstatement. The QAI and subsequent reviews by credential committees and the commander often take a couple months, and there are due process rights associated with every level of review and action. Those rights need to be smartly exercised to place the provider in the best position to obtain a favorable outcome in the adverse privileging action process, which, in some cases, may only come at the end of an adversarial hearing.
Hiring an experienced lawyer is investment in the provider’s future; failure to get competent legal advice early on in the process may, in part, contribute to an adverse action.
Patrick Korody is a former Navy JAG who was recognized for his superior litigation and defense counsel skills by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. He maintains a private practice in Jacksonville, Florida and represents Army, Navy, and Air Force medical providers worldwide facing adverse privileging actions falling under Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6025.13 and applicable service regulations implementing that manual.