Montana Supreme Court upheld St. Peter’s Health’s firing of Dr. Tom Weiner over patient care concerns.
In 2020, Dr. Tom Weiner, an oncologist at St. Peter’s Health in Helena, was dismissed following an internal review of his medical practices. The termination came after numerous concerns were raised about his patient care, leading to investigations into his treatment methods. These concerns included the way he managed end-of-life care, as well as his handling of patient do-not-resuscitate orders and his prescribing of high doses of narcotics for non-cancer conditions. After a series of reviews, both internal and external, the hospital’s medical executive committee concluded that his behavior posed a risk to patients.
In a recent ruling, the Montana Supreme Court sided with St. Peter’s Health, confirming that the hospital was justified in firing Weiner. The court found that the hospital had followed appropriate procedures in reviewing Weiner’s practices, and that the decision to revoke his privileges was based on reasonable grounds. The ruling supported the hospital’s stance that its actions were necessary to ensure patient safety and uphold the quality of care.
The dispute between Weiner and St. Peter’s Health had its roots in multiple complaints about his treatment of patients. One of the most notable cases involved a patient, Scot Warwick, who had been treated with chemotherapy for lung cancer. However, medical records later showed that Warwick did not have cancer, and his death was linked to poisoning from the chemotherapy drug he had been prescribed. The case highlighted the level of concern surrounding Weiner’s medical practices.
Another area of focus in the investigation was Weiner’s prescription practices, which included the use of high doses of opioids without proper monitoring. The reviews also revealed that Weiner failed to maintain adequate documentation and did not coordinate care with other providers. These actions were deemed to be serious violations of medical standards, leading to his dismissal.
The legal battle reached the Montana Supreme Court, where the justices evaluated whether the hospital’s review process had been fair and thorough. The court concluded that St. Peter’s Health had made a reasonable effort to gather the necessary facts and had acted in good faith to protect patients. It emphasized that the peer review process, which had been protected under federal law since 1986, was designed to improve the quality of care and safeguard patient welfare.
Dr. Weiner, however, argued that the review process had been flawed. He claimed that he had not been given a proper chance to respond to the complaints or question the patients and medical providers involved in the case reviews. He also contended that the hospital’s external reviews were incomplete or improperly handled. But the court disagreed, stating that the hospital had enough evidence to support its decision to suspend Weiner’s medical privileges in November 2020.
The decision from the Montana Supreme Court brings an end to one part of a prolonged legal conflict. While the court ruled in favor of St. Peter’s Health, it also made clear that such decisions could still be challenged by doctors if they feel their review was unfair. However, in this case, the justices found that the hospital had acted within its rights.
In addition to the court ruling, St. Peter’s Health had already been involved in another legal matter related to Weiner’s time at the hospital. In August 2024, the hospital reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, agreeing to pay $10.8 million related to false billing claims linked to Weiner’s patient care. A separate lawsuit alleging fraudulent billing by Weiner is still ongoing.
The hospital expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, emphasizing its ongoing commitment to providing quality care for the Helena community. Meanwhile, the case has underscored the importance of thorough medical reviews and the role of hospitals in ensuring that their staff maintain high standards of patient care. For the patients, this ruling offers some closure on the issue of Weiner’s practices, reinforcing the principle that healthcare providers must be held accountable when their actions put patient safety at risk.
Sources:
MT Supreme Court sides with Helena hospital in case over oncologist’s firing
Winer trial judge rules in favor of St. Peter’s Health
A ProPublica investigation of Helena, Montana, oncologist Tom Weiner
Join the conversation!