Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. — Feb. 2017 (Summary)

SUMMARY SUSPENSION/NPDB

Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr.
B263095 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2017)

The Court of Appeal for the Second District of California affirmed a trial court’s ruling dismissing a physician’s challenge to a hospital’s summary suspension pending a peer review.

The physician performed an elective surgery on a 12-year-old patient for scoliosis.  Complications arose from the physician’s inappropriate choice of materials and the patient required corrective surgery.  Because the physician had continued the surgery despite lacking the appropriate equipment and because the physician was slated to correct the medical error by operating on the patient again, the hospital summarily suspended the physician’s medical staff privileges.  The physician was provided with notice of his hearing rights and the hospital reported his suspension to the National Practitioner Data Bank.  The physician requested a peer review hearing to challenge the summary suspension.  The peer review, and subsequent appeals, found that the hospital had acted reasonably in suspending the physician’s privileges.  The physician then filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, retaliation for his alleged reports to management regarding patient safety concerns.  The hospital contended that the peer review process prevented the physician from bringing his claims in court.  The trial court agreed.

The appeal court noted that the physician would have to establish “a probability of success on the merits” if the hospital could show that his claims arose from the protected peer review process.  The physician did not show that his summary suspension occurred within 120 days of him filing a grievance with the hospital and also did not show that he filed any type of grievance, in the first place.  Accordingly, the court held that the hospital’s actions did not raise an inference of retaliation.  Furthermore, the physician brought the claim beyond the statute of limitations and, therefore, could not demonstrate that he was likely to succeed if the case went to trial.  The court also held that the decision to institute a summary suspension was part of the peer review process; and the peer review process, the court confirmed, was a protected activity because it represented “official proceedings authorized by law.”  As such, the physician’s post-operative report and his comments to the patient’s parents and staff did not constitute the filing of a formal grievance for which anti-retaliatory protections would apply.  The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court and denied the physician’s request for judicial review.