Sadeghi v. Sharp Mem’l Med. Ctr. Chula Vista (Summary)

MEDICAL STAFF HEARING

Sadeghi v. Sharp Mem’l Med. Ctr. Chula Vista, D060429 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2013)

A California appellate court upheld the denial of a physician’s petition for administrative mandate, in which the physician asked the court to compel a medical center to void a decision upholding the 2007 summary suspension of his privileges.  The physician argued that several aspects of his hearing and appeal process (which lasted over 35 sessions!) were unfair which justified having the medical center’s determination overturned.

The physician argued that the hearing officer improperly excluded evidence that he took steps after the summary suspension to address the MEC’s concerns about his mental health and professional competence, including obtaining an additional psychiatric evaluation and attending the PACE program.  The court rejected this argument, finding the hearing panel to have appropriately limited its scope to considering whether the MEC’s decision to summarily suspend the physician’s privileges was reasonable based on the information it had at the time of the suspension.  Therefore, evidence of mitigating actions that were later taken by the physician was irrelevant to the hearing panel’s deliberations.

The court also rejected the physician’s argument that the hearing panel was improperly composed, since it did not include three medical staff members, finding that the Bylaws specifically contemplated that when it was not feasible to utilize three medical staff members (such as here, where a number of individuals were eliminated from consideration due to competing financial interests and prior involvement in the matter), the panel could include individuals outside the hospital.

The court also rejected the physician’s argument that he had been improperly told he could not talk to hospital staff members about the hearing and this prevented him from identifying and preparing witnesses.  The court noted that the restriction on contact applied only to the physician, not his attorney, and was within the scope of the hearing officer’s duties since the physician’s prior contact with hospital employees had resulted in a number of complaints of harassment.