Valfer v. Evanston Nw. Healthcare – March 2015 (Summary)

PEER REVIEW IMMUNITY

Valfer v. Evanston Nw. Healthcare, No. 1-14-2284 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 26, 2015)

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of an obstetrician’s breach of contract claim against a hospital, holding that the hospital was immune under the state’s peer review statute. Plaintiff, an obstetrician, lost his privileges at defendant, a hospital, after a reappointment peer review committee determined that at least 50% of his surgical cases lacked demonstrable indications for surgical intervention. The obstetrician alleged that the hospital breached its bylaws (the alleged contract) when the hospital allowed competitors to review his work and to testify against him during his reappointment denial hearing. The obstetrician claimed that his reputation was damaged and sought monetary damages. The hospital argued, and the lower court agreed, that it was immune from liability under the state’s peer review statute. The obstetrician appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s holding, stating that the hospital was immune from civil damages unless the obstetrician alleged that the hospital acted willfully and wantonly, as defined by the statute, which he failed to do. The statute requires that the obstetrician pled or proved that there was some type of harm to his safety or the safety of others, not just to his reputation. The court explained that if a physician could sue for civil damages every time he or she lost privileges, the immunity in the peer review statute would be meaningless and medical peer review would be discouraged for fear of lawsuits seeking money damages.