Revolution in Disputes Between Hospitals and Their Physicians?

by Nossaman LLP
Contact

Daily Journal - 08/24/12

A new decision of the state Court of Appeal last week may change the way disputes between hospitals and their privileged physicians will play out. In Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals, 2012 DJDAR 11289 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. Aug. 14, 2012), the court upheld the right of a physician to sue for damages a hospital that had refused to reappoint the physician to its medical staff through peer review proceedings. The physician alleged that the discipline was retaliation for his whistleblowing about staff work he thought threatened public health. He was allowed to bring the suit although he had not challenged the hospital's adverse peer review decision through a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Hitherto, under the state Supreme Court's 36-year-old decision in Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 3d 465 (1976), any hospital decision about staff privileges was entitled to collateral estoppel effect if it had not been challenged and reversed in such writ proceedings.

Dr. Mark Fahlen was a nephrologist who had enjoyed staff privileges at Memorial Medical Center since 2002. Fahlen, employed by Gould Medical Group, had repeated arguments with nurses about "negative interactions" regarding care for his patients, to the point where eventually the hospital's chief operating officer contacted Gould's director in a strange way. The COO testified at a peer review hearing that he made this contact in the hope that the Gould director would confront Fahlen, Fahlen would get angry, Gould would fire him, and Fahlen would then leave town. That is certainly an unusual plan, but Gould did fire Fahlen resulting in the loss of his medical malpractice insurance and his ability to treat patients. Fahlen consulted the hospital's COO, who told him to leave town or he would be subject to peer review hearings; Fahlen replied that he intended to stay and open an independent practice. Shortly thereafter, the medical staff commenced peer review proceedings against Fahlen. Apparently the COO testified to much of this unusual history.

The Medical Executive Committee decided not to renew Fahlen's staff privileges. Fahlen contested that decision and the matter was heard according to standard practice under the Medical Staff bylaws by a Judicial Review Committee (JRC), a committee of other physicians with staff privileges. The JRC found that the Medical Staff had not sustained its burden of proving that its recommendation not to renew Fahlen's privileges at the hospital was "reasonable and warranted" although it observed that his interactions with the nursing staff had been "inappropriate and not acceptable."

Eventually the hospital's board of directors overruled the JRC, ordering that Fahlen not be reappointed upon the expiration of his privileges. Up to this point, the events are not unusual. If Fahlen wanted to challenge them, his path would be by writ review in the Superior Court. Should he fail to seek such review, the decision would be final. If he did seek review and the nonrenewal was affirmed, Westlake would collaterally estop any further challenges.

Fahlen chose a different path. Since 1999, California has had a statute encouraging health care workers to notify authorities of "suspected unsafe patient care and conditions." Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5. The statute prohibits retaliation against health care workers for making such complaints. In 2007, it was amended "to include among those protected from retaliation or discrimination any ‘member of the medical staff ... or any other health care worker of the health facility.'" Section 1278.5(b)(1). The statute also creates a presumption that "discriminatory action" was retaliatory if it was taken by the health facility or its owner within 120 days of the whistleblower's complaints. Section 1278.5(d).

Fahlen brought suit against the hospital and its COO under this section. Apparently he is the first litigant to present the apparent conflict between the peer review statutes and Westlake on the one hand, and Section 1278.5 on the other hand, to a court of appeal.

The defendants brought a SLAPP motion and appealed when it was denied. The Court of Appeal decided that the peer review procedures were "protected activity" for SLAPP purposes: official proceedings authorized by law. See Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal. 4th 192 (2006). However, in the face of a statutory presumption in Fahlen's favor, the defendants could not defeat Fahlen's showing of a "probability that [he] will prevail on the claim." Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(b)(1)). The defendants argued that Westlake required Fahlen to seek writ review or be collaterally estopped from challenging the hospital board's decision not to renew his privileges; the court disagreed.

In 2007, the Legislature considered proposed amendments to Section 1278.5 which would "simply add[ ] nonemployee doctors who had staff privileges at a health facility to those persons who were protected from discrimination and retaliation as a result of whistleblowing." Opponents argued that peer review proceedings, whose confidentiality was protected by other statutes, were put at risk by the bill. In response, the bill was amended to provide that "the medical staff of the health facility may petition the court for an injunction to protect a peer review committee from being required to comply with the evidentiary demands ... if the evidentiary demands would impede the peer review process or endanger the health and safety of patients," and that "prior to granting an injunction, the court shall conduct an in camera review of the evidence to determine" whether production would "impede[ ]" the peer review process, in which case the court may grant an injunction against such production, but only "until the peer review hearing is completed." The court concluded that these additions meant that the Legislature intended that whistleblower actions could proceed even while peer review proceedings were in progress.

But how could that right be reconciled with Westlake's requirement that the physician or other healthcare worker must exhaust the administrative process, including a Section 1094.5 mandate proceeding? The Supreme Court had ruled in two related situations that a whistleblower need not exhaust administrative procedures before exercising her rights under Section 1278.5. In State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court (Arbuckle), 45 Cal. 4th 963 (2009), the plaintiff had exhausted her administrative remedies before the State Personnel Board, which had ruled that the administrative actions against her were not based on her protected disclosures, and the question before the court was whether Arbuckle's whistleblower action was barred by the Westlake doctrine. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, noting that the statute "expressly acknowledged the existence of the parallel administrative remedy [but] did not require that the [administrative findings] be set aside by way of a mandate action" and that the statute was written in a manner suggesting that the Legislature had not wanted to confine her remedies to be "narrowly circumscribed" by administrative findings.

Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 48 Cal. 4th 760 (2010), involved a different whistleblower statute that protected employees of the California State University system. The court ruled that even a "thorough and procedurally fair administrative decision" did not resolve the whistleblower's claims, which could therefore be presented in a civil action for damages.

Combining the reasoning of Arbuckle and Runyon with the specific but limited provisions enacted to protect patient concerns in ongoing peer review proceedings, the court determined that in enacting the 2007 amendments to Section 1278.5, the Legislature intended to allow physician retaliation claims to proceed in parallel with peer review proceedings, and that the Westlake rule could not be asserted in defense against such a suit.

Fahlen's case is unusual in that the hospital's COO apparently admitted to taking exceptional steps to make Fahlen's life in Modesto untenable; but its ruling will apply throughout California. By no means do all peer review proceedings against physicians involve management and relationship disputes. Some contend that hospitals and medical staffs have been aggressive in protecting themselves and their staffs against physicians who challenge the status quo. At the same time, more than a few physicians have asserted that disciplinary proceedings against them were retaliatory even where the targeted physician had clearly been disruptive to patient care.

If the Fahlen decision stands, we can expect that in many situations there will be parallel suits under Section 1278.5 during the peer review process. The case will likely have no effect where the charges against a physician are purely medical, but we can expect that even in such cases some physicians will argue that the claims of inadequate professional performance are pretextual and that the true reason for them is retaliatory. Now they can make that argument in damage suits under Section 1278.5, before juries and without the collateral limitations of the peer review process's outcome.

Any time a disruptive physician is being disciplined through peer review, the other parties can expect a claim of retaliation. Whether that is a positive or a negative development depends on your point of view.

Kurt W. Melchior is a partner with Nossaman LLP.  He is a member of the California Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame, an award given to professionals who have excelled as trial lawyers and whose careers exemplify the highest of values and professional attainment.  He has over 30 years' experience in complex litigation, including insurance coverage litigation.  He has tried many non-jury and jury cases to judgment and has been counsel of record in more than 70 published cases.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Nossaman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Nossaman LLP
Contact
more
less

Nossaman LLP 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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!