Palepu v. Bondi — Feb. 2017 (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Palepu v. Bondi
No. 458 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2017)

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a decision granting a defendant physician’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of defamation for his role in relaying a report of harassment to a hospital peer review committee.

A nurse reported to her supervisor disparaging comments directed toward her by plaintiff physician.  The nursing supervisor notified the defendant physician, the chair of the surgery department, about the incident, and the defendant chair ultimately disclosed the information to the peer review committee.  Plaintiff physician sued the defendant physician claiming that his report to the peer review committee was “knowingly false” and therefore did not enjoy the privilege of peer review protection.  Under Pennsylvania law, unless the information provided to the peer review committee was intentionally false, the individual providing the information is immune from suit.  The court found that the plaintiff physician failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that the defendant physician had deliberately fabricated or manipulated the events that he relayed to the peer review committee and, as such, failed to rebut the protection of peer review privilege.  The Superior Court therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant physician.