Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (July 29, 2021, S244148) __ Cal.5th __ [2021 WL 3201090]
Dr. Aram Bonni sued two hospitals under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, which prohibits health facilities from retaliating against medical staff members for presenting grievances, complaints, or reports to the facility or its medical staff. Dr. Bonni alleged the hospitals retaliated against him by summarily suspending his medical staff privileges and initiating peer review proceedings against him after he reported safety concerns; he had experienced patient complications in successive surgeries involving robotic equipment. The hospitals moved to strike the retaliation causes of action under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), arguing that the claims arose from protected peer review proceedings. The trial court granted the hospitals’ motion, ruling that the gravamen of the retaliation claims were based on protected peer review activities. The Court of Appeal reversed. Applying Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, the court held that the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect actions undertaken with retaliatory motive. The Supreme Court granted review.
The California Supreme Court agreed in part with the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court explained that, for anti-SLAPP purposes, each act or set of acts alleged in a complaint must be analyzed separately to determine whether protected activity forms the basis of the claim, or is merely incidental or collateral to that claim. The Court agreed that medical peer review is a protected activity under Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 192, but only up to a point. The Court clarified that, under Park, the anti-SLAPP statute protects only speech and petitioning activity taken in connection with peer review that is the alleged wrongdoing. Thus, while the anti-SLAPP statute applies to alleged statements made in a peer review proceeding, and to hospitals’ required reporting of any decision to the Medical Board and a national database, the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to final disciplinary decisions. Without addressing Evidence Code section 1157, the Supreme Court stated that Dr. Bonni could rely on protected statements made during peer review proceedings as evidence of the hospitals’ alleged improper motive for imposing discipline. Having determined that the hospitals could not prevail entirely under the first step of anti-SLAPP analysis, the Supreme Court remanded for further analysis under the second step—whether Dr. Bonni had established “minimal merit” regarding his surviving claims.
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
