Barry S. Landsberg

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP

Los Angeles

Litigation

The state Supreme Court responded to the coronavirus crisis with a March 16 order suspending in-person oral argument sessions and substituting video or telephone appearances, and Landsberg, who has two major high court cases on his agenda, said he envisions attorneys appearing before the justices "from at home wearing running shorts and the top half of a suit."

"The court is trying to adhere to shelter in place requirements," Landsberg added.

The order said that all argument sessions will be conducted from the court's San Francisco headquarters and will continue to be live-streamed on the judicial branch website.

The Manatt, Phelps & Phillips partner practices trial and appellate law as a heath care litigator. His cases arise from federal and state constitutional issues, California's unfair competition law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act along with commercial contract and business tort disputes.

He also handles hospital medical staff cases arising under federal and state anti-kickback regulations.

Landsberg represents Dignity Health, the San Francisco-based nonprofit that runs the fifth-largest hospital system in the U.S., in a case in which the high court granted review on Feb. 26. The suit was filed by a physician seeking to reverse the revocation of his staff membership at St. Joseph's Medical Center in Stockton. He contended that the hearing officer appointed by the hospital to oversee his administrative peer review was financially biased due to his history of working with other Dignity Health hospitals and the potential for future work in the Dignity Health system. Natarajan v. Dignity Health, S259364 (Ca. S. Ct., petition for rev. filed Dec. 23, 2019).

"Peer review is a thankless but necessary task that must be undertaken at every hospital as part of its self-policing function," Landsberg said. "Doctors have vested property rights as staff members. The question is whether a hospital slants things because it pays the hearing officer."

A state appellate panel affirmed the doctor's dismissal and OK'd the peer review process. The doctor, Sundar Natarajan, successfully petitioned for review, arguing that the appellate opinion conflicted with a 2005 ruling, Yaqub v. Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System, that held a hearing officer had a disqualifying financial bias even though he lacked any direct interest in the case.

Landsberg's opposition to review held that "Yaqub simply erred." It pointed out that financial bias by hearing officers is governed by a section of the Business & Professions Code that went unmentioned by the Yaqub panel.

"It's a significant matter in this particular arena," Landsberg said. "We like our prospects here."

-- John Roemer