Asiryan v. Medical Staff of Glendale Adventist Medical Center (Feb. 29, 2024, B316313) ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ [2024 WL 1171035], certified for publication Mar. 19, 2024
Dr. Vardui Asiryan had medical staff privileges at Glendale Adventist Medical Center (GAMC). The GAMC Medical Staff (a separate legal entity from GAMC) is responsible for reviewing physician performance at GAMC to ensure patients receive quality healthcare. After members of the Medical Staff voiced concerns that Dr. Asiryan’s medical incompetency was a threat to patient safety, the Medical Staff summarily suspended her privileges pending an investigation, without providing prior notice or a hearing. Dr. Asiryan attended a meeting with Medical Staff officers and its counsel where she was informed of the summary suspension. At that meeting she elected to resign her privileges. GAMC then reported her resignation to the Medical Board and the National Practitioner Data Bank. Dr. Asiryan sued GAMC and the Medical Staff alleging they denied her due process and that the Medical Staff violated statutory and common law notice obligations by lying to her regarding its reporting obligations. The trial court suggested pretrial that Dr. Asiryan should consider amending her complaint to allege fraud or misrepresentation claims, but then declined her attempt to do so on the eve of trial. The trial court granted summary judgment for GAMC, and later granted nonsuit in favor of the Medical Staff on Dr. Asiryan’s common-law “fair procedure” claim. The jury then returned a verdict in the Medical Staff’s favor on her statutory claim, finding it did not misinform Dr. Asiryan regarding its reporting plans and duties. Dr. Asiryan appealed, challenging the dismissal of her fair procedure cause of action.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It explained that California enacted a comprehensive medical staff peer review statutory scheme (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 805–809.9), which requires a peer review body or the administration of the body’s affiliated hospital to file an “805 report” to the licensing agency within 15 days of certain actions, including when a licentiate resigns from staff privileges after being notified of a pending investigation. The court held that this comprehensive statutory scheme is the only source of procedural protections in the hospital peer review context, leaving no place to apply common-law fair procedure principles. The statutory scheme “methodically delineates specific and detailed procedural requirements for each step of a peer review proceeding,” which reflects the Legislature’s intent to replace the common law in this area. The scheme sets “minimum” standards, permitting hospitals to establish additional procedural protections, but that does not imply a continuing role for the common law in this context. Because the common law right to fair procedure does not support a separate cause of action, the court properly granted a nonsuit on that claim.
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
