Chambi v. WMC-SA, Inc. (Summary)

PEER REVIEW

Chambi v. WMC-SA, Inc., G046922 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2013)

The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District affirmed a lower court’s judgment in favor of a hospital, finding that a neurosurgeon failed to carry his burden of showing that the hospital’s failure to honor his request to have a fellow neurosurgeon on a peer review panel in accordance with California law was prejudicial. The neurosurgeon had privileges at the hospital when charges were brought against him for substandard medical care. He timely requested that a fellow neurosurgeon be on the peer review panel; however, the request was rejected because all the neurosurgeons on the staff would have been biased and getting an outside neurosurgeon would have been too expensive. The peer review panel recommended termination of the neurosurgeon’s privileges and the hospital’s governing board adopted the recommendation.

The court found that the hospital had a mandatory obligation under California law to have another neurosurgeon on the peer review panel, where feasible. The hospital, not the accused neurosurgeon, had the responsibility of showing that the presence of a fellow specialist was not feasible, as the hospital is responsible for paying for the specialist and the hospital has access to information regarding whether it has the financial means to pay.

However, the court found that the hospital did not show that finding a neurosurgeon for the panel was not feasible because it did not provide reasons why it would have been too expensive to hire an outside neurosurgeon other than taking its word for it. Nevertheless, the court further found that the neurosurgeon made no effort to show that having a fellow neurosurgeon on his panel affected the ultimate outcome; thus, the neurosurgeon failed to prove that the hospital had acted with prejudice.