California Decision Allows Physician to Challenge Sham Peer Review as Whistleblower Retaliation


In Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals, the California Supreme Court found:

  1. A physician is not required to first exhaust his administrative remedies through the medical staff appeals process in order to challenge sham peer review as whistleblower retaliation; and
  2. Dr. Fahlen qualified as a whistleblower for purposes of the California Whistleblower Act.

The California Medical Association and attorneys for physicians have hailed this decision as a landmark victory, allowing physicians to seek whistleblower protection against sham peer review, before exhausting their administrative remedies. Requiring the physician to prevail at a medical staff proceeding not only significantly delayed the opportunity to seek protection and risked irreversible damages to a physicians career, requiring the physician to actually prevail also stacked the deck against the physicians because medical staff hearings are not the most neutral venues for physicians. Of course, this decision is limited to California law at this point, and particularly the California Whistleblower Protection Act.

On the other hand, hospitals and their counsel are contending that this makes peer review that much more difficult for hospitals, because other physicians will be even less willing to participate in peer review proceedings if they feel they are at risk for whistleblower retaliation, and the cost of these proceedings to the hospital will be significantly increased because of the prospect of additional litigation.

Frankly, I believe the chilling effect on peer review is exaggerated, for a number of reasons.

First, the peer review process starts well before there are hearings involving supposedly neutral physicians. It begins when complaints are made against the physician’s conduct, and hospital executives and medical staff officers need to decide how to address those concerns.

Second, successful challenges to hospital peer review processes have been few and far between since the advent of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act in 1986. I doubt that adding an additional level of protection for those physicians who are actually the subject of sham peer review is likely to dramatically alter that balance.

Written by:


Tucker Arensberg, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.