to and was not prejudiced by the duration of the investigation. 35 Cowell also admitted her personal responsibility for keeping track of the scope of her privileges before the second HC. 36 Regarding Cowell’s argument that the IC exceeded the scope of its authority, the second ARC found the IC acted within the bylaws. 37 Mathews, 87 F.3d at 638 (stating that reports by a preliminary investigative committee and by an outside reviewer, even though they conflicted with a report prepared by the physician’s expert, were “not so obviously mistaken or inadequate as to make reliance on them that the informal procedures used throughout the review process leading to the revocation of privileges satisfied the adequate notice and procedures element of § 11112(a)(3)); Singh, 308 F.3d at 30, 43-44 (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Ricks, 31 F.3d 1478, 1487 (9th Cir.
holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue holding that procedures were adequate even though the physician did not have the opportunity to challenge the results of an audit before requesting a hearing holding that the  district court did not give the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to be heard where it failed to conduct an in limine hearing and denied oral argument on the evidentiary issues holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because  hearing as used in  2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses