Dignity Health v. Mounts (2024)
A hospital filed a claim against a surgeon to recover an advance payment after the surgeon was asked to resign following an investigation into his clinical competence. The defendant filed a cross-complaint alleging employment retaliation. The hospital filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint. The trial court, after first denying the motion, granted the anti-SLAPP motion following a remand from the Court of Appeal. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s conduct during the medical peer review was protected by the litigation and common interest privileges, and barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant the anti-SLAPP motion.
The Court noted that the common interest privilege extends to communications made “without malice” “regarding the conditions under which [the defendant] performed surgery.” “Unless [the communications] were malicious, [the plaintiff’s] communications in this category were privileged. Privileged communications cannot form the basis of a claim for retaliation.”
The Court also noted that the litigation privilege “confers an absolute privilege on communications made as part of a judicial or other ‘truth-seeking’ official proceeding,” including “communications made in connection with a medical peer review proceeding.” The Court reasoned “the privilege is intended to afford participants unfettered access to the proceeding without fear of subsequent derivative tort actions.”
