# Irwin Harris, M.D. v. Bellin Memorial Hospital and Confidential Peer Review, Ltd.

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · January 7, 1994 · 13 F.3d 1082

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486310

## Case

- **Full name:** Irwin HARRIS, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and Confidential Peer Review, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** January 7, 1994
- **Citations:** 13 F.3d 1082; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 269; 1994 WL 3791
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flaum
- **Judges:** Cummings, Flaum, Will
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486310

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 plaintiffs 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486310. Public record. Not legal advice.