Application Of California's Anti-SLAPP Statute In The Medical Staff Peer Review Context: The California Supreme Court Protects Peer Review Participants

In a case of first impression, the California Supreme Court held that a hospital’s medical staff peer review proceedings are an “official proceeding authorized by law” and thus, statements and actions made in connection with such proceedings are subject to a special motion to strike under California’s “anti-SLAPP” statute.  Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District, 39 Cal. 4th 192 (2006).

In Kibler, the hospital’s peer review committee suspended the plaintiff physician’s staff privileges due to his violent behavior, including his assault of a hospital employee with a gun.  The physician sued the hospital and its peer review participants for defamation, intentional interference with his right to practice medicine, abuse of process, violation of his constitutional rights, restraint of trade, extortion and conspiracy.  The hospital filed a motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the action arose out of the peer review proceeding, which qualified as an “official proceeding authorized by law” under the statute.  The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.  The Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The anti-SLAPP statute, which is set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(b)(1), provides:  “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”  Subdivision (e) of §425.16 defines the phrase “act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech…in connection with a public issue’ to include:  “(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.…”

In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that the anti-SLAPP statute was meant to be construed broadly as an efficient tool to end lawsuits that are brought to “primarily chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress.”  Moreover, the Supreme Court noted the vital public interest that hospital medical staff peer review proceedings serve.  In doing so, the Court highlighted the legislature’s creation of a comprehensive statutory scheme, which emphasizes the role of hospital medical staff peer review in policing California’s physicians.  For example, California Business & Professions Code § 809(a)(8) requires acute-care facilities to include a provision in their by-laws for peer review.  Further, peer review proceedings and records are exempt from discovery under California Evidence Code § 1157.  Moreover, a hospital’s decisions from peer review committees are subject to judicial review by administrative mandate.  According to the Court, the legislature “accorded a hospital’s peer review decisions a status comparable to that of quasi-judicial public agencies whose decisions likewise are reviewable by administrative mandate.” 

As a result of the Kibler decision, a hospital’s medical staff may be more willing to participate in peer review committees with the knowledge that their statements in connection with the peer review proceedings, as well as their investigation, will be insulated from liability due to their good faith participation in the process.  Further, the decision reaffirms California’s public policy of protecting hospitals and their physicians who participate in peer review.  Additionally, peer reviewers, and hospitals and insurers that indemnify them, may be able to end a lawsuit at an early stage and recoup their attorney’s fees in the process.

We will continue to update our readers as California courts further define the parameters of the anti-SLAPP statute.