Doctor rebuffed in effort to reinstate medical privileges.

Byline: Barry Bridges

Superior Court Judge Susan E. McGuirl has held that a surgeon did not make the case for injunctive relief in asking the court to reinstate his medical staff privileges at Kent Hospital.

Earlier this year, Dr. Vincent Zizza performed a wrong-site incision on the left side of a patient's abdomen for what was supposed to be a right-sided nephrectomy.

In the ensuing investigation, the hospital's Medical Executive Committee became aware that the doctor's credentialing file reflected several quality and safety violations, a history of mischaracterizing procedures, and errors in protocol relative to site location. Soon thereafter, the hospital's board of directors agreed with the recommendations of the MEC and revoked Zizza's medical privileges at Kent.

Although a hospital committee scheduled a hearing to review the board's decision, Zizza moved forward with a motion asking the court to enjoin Kent from continuing with the revocation.

McGuirl first determined that since the plaintiff was in effect asking the court to require the hospital to reinstate his privileges, her job was to decide on a mandatory injunction i.e., one that commands, rather than prevents, certain actions. And to be granted such relief, not only must a party show the usual elements reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of the equities and preservation of the status quo but must also demonstrate "very clear" and "great" urgency.

The plaintiff failed on all of those fronts, the judge found.

McGuirl held that Zizza did not show a likelihood of success on the merits, as he did not establish that the hospital violated the Rhode Island Health Care Facility Licensing Act, the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act, the hospital's...