noting that diversity jurisdiction can be determined on the face of 14 the complaint or, if not evident from that document, based on a preponderance of the evidence in 15 the record
How later courts described this case
- noting that diversity jurisdiction can be determined on the face of 14 the complaint or, if not evident from that document, based on a preponderance of the evidence in 15 the record
- finding plaintiff's allegations of defendants' "motive to skew the peer review against him" unsupported by any credible evidence
- finding “bare allegation of misconduct” insufficient to infer lack of good faith
- claim of malice in connection with peer review, though supported by some deposition testimony, was insufficient to defeat summary judgment motion
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join this court’s judgment and opinion affirming the district court. I write separately only to express some concern as to what I perceive to be a possible lack of thoroughness on the part of the defendants. Raw percentages alone are relatively meaningless without a sophisticated statistical analysis. We should be wary of creating incentives for physicians to abandon high-risk patients by our drawing unwarranted inferences from raw numerical data. However, like the court, I question why with all plaintiffs allegations he has offered no statistical analysis of his own. See Opinion of the Court, ante p. 1087. While noting that performing a proper statistical analysis would have substantially strengthened defendants’ good faith defense, I cannot find this defect alone as sufficient indication that defendants lacked “good faith” absent any further evidence by plaintiff. Therefore, recognizing that defendants certainly could have improved their investigation of Dr. Harris, their actions appear to meet, albeit marginally, the standard presented by the State’s statutory presumption of good faith.