Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (March 27, 2024, F084700/F085710) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2024 WL 1298913]
Dr. R. Michael Williams is a board-certified oncologist who practiced at the Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (DMCM). Disagreement over patient care strained the relationship between Dr. Williams and DMCM. Dr. Williams sued, claiming that DMCM improperly curtailed his hospital privileges, limiting his capacity to care for patients. Dr. Williams’s initial lawsuit included allegations about statements made in connection with peer review proceedings or concerning his competency. Dr. Williams voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice in response to DMCM’s anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court then granted DMCM’s motion for attorney fees, ruling that the initial lawsuit was based on protected activity. In his second lawsuit, Dr. Williams alleged various conduct by DMCM that improperly restricted his privileges to care for patients at DMCM, but expressly disavowed any allegations about wrongful peer review or protected speech. The trial court once again granted DMCM’s anti-SLAPP motion. Relying on South Sutter LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, L.P. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 634, the court ruled that both lawsuits concerned the same primary right, which satisfied the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis (that the second lawsuit was based on protected activity). Dr. Williams appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed. The court explained that the trial court erred by relying on South Sutter’s primary rights analysis because subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 and Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376) established that the primary rights theory does not apply in the anti-SLAPP context. Rather than focusing on primary rights, an anti-SLAPP motion tests whether allegations of protected activity are asserted as grounds for relief. Because Dr. Williams’s second lawsuit disavowed any allegation of protected activity as a basis for relief, the earlier ruling that the initial lawsuit was based on protected activity had no preclusive effect. Aside from its misplaced reliance on issue preclusion, DMCM did not meet its burden of showing that Dr. Williams’s second lawsuit was based on allegations of protected activity.
Prepared by H. Thomas Watson and Peder K. Batalden, Horvitz & Levy, LLP
California Society for Healthcare Attorneys
1215 K Street, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814
