BOISE -- This week at the Idaho Statehouse representatives will consider a bill that received almost no attention when it passed the Senate a couple of weeks ago.
That’s a big mistake according to one Boise couple.
They've mounted a campaign to make sure a bill centered on their case against St. Alphonsus doesn’t get passed.
Exactly what would this bill do? Well, that depends on who you talk to.
"I can't see that that bill protects anybody but the hospitals," said Julie Harrison.
"My view is this just gets us to where everybody thought we were," said Sen. Denton Darrington.
“It is a very small fix, only a couple of sentences added to the existing statute," said Steve Mallard, Idaho Hospital Association.
“It's certainly not a little change,” said attorney David Leroy.
It this legislation a small fix to ensure the quality of doctor care in hospitals or a major change to protect hospitals from lawsuits? That's the question before lawmakers as they consider Senate Bill 1373.
It amends a bill that gives hospital peer review committees protection from lawsuits. Peer review involves volunteer physicians who recommend who can practice medicine inside hospitals. The amendment adds a couple of words to make sure that the decisions hospitals make based on peer review recommendations are also immune from lawsuits.
“I just can't even imagine subjecting someone else to the absolute hell we've been through," said Julie Harrison.
Ray and Julie Harrison are fighting the amendment because they say decisions made by St. Alphonsus allowed a doctor with a long and documented drug and alcohol problem to keep his hospital privileges. Ray says he's never been the same since.
“I try my best to give her a helping hand but these hands are kind of helpless. I can't write, I can't even write my own name,” said Ray Harrison.
In 2004, Ray was taken to St. Al’s emergency room with extreme sodium deficiency.
“It was a constant battle the entire time he was in there,” said Julie Harrison.
Dr. Jeffrey Hartford became Ray's hospital assigned doctor. The Harrisons didn't know it then, but there is a file on Dr. Hartford. It's the Idaho Board of Medicine report detailing Dr. Hartford's history related to drug and alcohol abuse. Julie says she didn't need a file to know Dr. Hartford had a problem.
“I believe he was under the influence of alcohol while he was treating him. I reported it to people at the hospital and everybody ignored it. They just ignored I,” said Julie Harrison.
Ray and Julie say Dr. Hartford's treatments left Ray with severe brain and neurological damage. They're suing St. Al’s because, in their words, 'the hospital gave privileges to a drunk doctor.'
Their suit made it all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court which said, as the law stands now, the Harrisons have a right to sue. The high court has ordered a lower court to consider their claim.
“It's a very important issue for our hospitals," said Mallard.
Mallard says the Harrison's suit is why he wrote the amendment. He insists it simply clarifies the original intent of the law and protects a vital process.
“If we don't have the protection within the process then we don't have peer review, and if we don't have peer review we don't have a very important mechanism that we need to make sure the quality of care is where it is," said Mallard.
David Leroy, a trial lawyer but not on the Harrison's case, says it goes far beyond protecting peer review.
"I believe this statute if amended in the way that's proposed would absolutely preclude any successful litigation against the hospital for a peer review or credentialing decision that is negligently or wrongly made," said Leroy.
The lawmaker who sponsored Senate Bill 1373 strongly disagrees.
“There's only immunity for the peer review process,” said Sen. Darrington.
“And if that peer review process allows for bad decisions - where's the accountability?” asked NewsChannel 7.
“There's always recourse if the mistakes are medical procedures,” said Darrington.
“But not decisions. But maybe not decisions with regard to credentialing or privileging?” asked NewsChannel 7.
“We want to have those professional people feel free to sit on those boards and do their jobs,” said Darrington.
But Ray and Julie Harrison hope lawmakers will agree with them that hospitals need to be held accountable for the decisions their boards make because they say decisions, not just procedures, impact lives.
“I think the accountability of the board of directors of any medical institution has to bear the responsibility of their actions, that's my own opinion,” said Ray Harrison.
The Idaho House will begin considering the bill Tuesday in the Health and Welfare Committee.
Meantime, the Harrisons should see their suit against St. Al's back in district court next January.
Dr. Hartford is no longer a member of the St. Al’s medical staff. Our attempt to reach him for comment was unsuccessful.
