Bode v. L.A. Doctors Hosp. Corp. (Summary)

HCQIA IMMUNITY

Bode v. L.A. Doctors Hosp. Corp., B244502 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2014)

The California Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court properly denied a hospital’s motion for summary judgment based on HCQIA immunity because there was evidence that the plaintiff physician was not provided notice and a hearing as required by the safe harbor provisions of the Act. However, the appeals court ruled that the trial court improperly adjudicated the issue of immunity in favor of the plaintiff physician because she did not file a motion for summary adjudication. Thus, the issue should have remained for determination at trial. The appeals court reversed and remanded the matter to the lower court “to determine the issue of immunity under HCQIA by way of a motion by [the plaintiff physician] for summary adjudication, a court or jury trial on disputed factual issues, or other appropriate procedure….”

The appeals court also ruled that the trial court erred in not granting summary judgment to the hospital on the issue of immunity under California law. However, the appeals court ruled that the trial court properly determined that the anesthesiologist showed no evidence of outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress, and no evidence that the hospital acted with malice.