Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. — Aug. 2014 (Summary)

PEER REVIEW – SUSPENSION – FAILURE TO EXHAUST

Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr.
No. B247957 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2014)

The California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Division 3, affirmed a trial court’s motion to strike a physician’s claim that he was denied the right to practice medicine, finding that the hospital’s activity was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.

Members of a hospital staff began noticing strange and paranoid behavior from a physician, who was videotaping hospital visitors because he believed he was being followed by the FBI. The hospital’s Chief Medical Officer summarily suspended the physician, providing him with both oral and written notice. The physician was given a letter advising him that he could invoke his peer review hearing rights within 30 days of this notice. Two weeks later, another letter was sent to the physician, reminding him of his right to request a peer review hearing, and alerting him that if he failed to request a hearing, the right would be deemed waived. The physician never requested a hearing during this time period. After a lengthy suspension, the hospital reinstated the physician’s privileges. The physician then sued the hospital for denying him the right to practice medicine during the time of his summary suspension. The hospital then filed a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, which the trial court granted.

The court agreed with the trial court’s ruling, holding that the hospital’s suspension of the physician was a part of the peer review process, and was therefore protected conduct. The court also held that the suspension constituted peer review even though it was conducted by a single administrator, the hospital CMO, because the hospital bylaws granted him the power to make suspensions in the peer review process. Therefore, the hospital was found to have met its burden to invoke anti-SLAPP protection. The court additionally held that the trial court’s ruling was appropriate because the physician failed to exhaust the administrative remedies made available to him upon his suspension.