Facts

Plaintiff John Nesson, a hospital radiologist, was summarily suspended. Subsequently, the governing board of defendant Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District terminated his contract to provide radiology services.

The doctor filed suit, alleging breach of contract, violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, FEHA, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Defendant filed a special Motion to Strike, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sect. 425.16, an anti-SLAPP motion, pursuant to Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 192, in which a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that hospital peer review proceedings are "official proceedings" as defined by the anti-SLAPP statute, thus allowing hospital and medical staff to obtain prompt dismissal of lawsuits filed to chill participation in matters of public significance.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff argued, notwithstanding his suspension, he could still supervise other radiologists to fulfill his contractual duties.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued that since plaintiff was no longer an active member of the medical staff, he would be unable to discharge his duties and responsibilities under the contract.

Defendant contended that all actions alleged by plaintiff arose out of peer review proceedings, were protected activity and, as plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative and/or judicial remedies prior to the filing of the lawsuit, all causes of action should be dismissed.

Result

The court found that defendant's activities were "inextricably intertwined" with peer review, and thus, protected activity. Further, the court found plaintiff's position that he could have fulfilled his contractual duties while not an active member of good standing on the medical staff, to be unreasonable and contrary to a plain reading of the contract. In addition, the court held that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative and/or judicial remedies. Accordingly, the court granted the anti-SLAPP motion and ordered judgment be entered for defendant. Defendant was directed to prepare judgment and submit claim for statutorily-mandated attorney fees and costs.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Jan. 15, 2011.