El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Med. Ctr. (Summary)

FAIR HEARING

El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Med. Ctr., No. S196830 (Cal. June 6, 2013)

The Supreme Court of California reversed and remanded a lower court’s decision that a hospital had deprived a physician of a right to a fair hearing and was entitled to a new hearing after his reappointment application was denied.

The physician submitted an application for reappointment and while the medical executive committee recommended that his application be approved, the hospital board denied the application, and the physician requested a fair hearing.  The medical executive committee concluded that since it did not recommend any adverse action, it was the responsibility of the board to appoint hearing panel members, and the physician filed a petition for an injunction stating that it was unlawful for the board to appoint the members and that, instead, the members were required to be appointed by the medical executive committee in accordance with the bylaws.  The petition was denied, and the hearing panel concluded that the board’s decision was reasonable, but that the panel would have pursued another resolution.  The board then terminated the physician from the medical staff.

A lower court then held that the bylaws precluded the medical executive committee from delegating to the board the ability to appoint the hearing panel members, and the case made its way to the supreme court.  The supreme court held that a violation of the hospital’s bylaws is not a material deviation that by itself deprived the physician of a fair hearing, and reasoned that the peer review statute provides that while the board must give deference to the determinations of the medical staff, it may take unilateral action if warranted, and that the lower court erred in concluding that the identity of the entity that appoints the hearing panel members is not determinative of whether the physician receives a fair hearing.

However, the supreme court did not hold that the physician actually received a fair hearing, but simply concluded that the lower court erred in holding that the medical executive committee’s delegation of the power to select the hearing panel members deprived the physician of a fair hearing.