Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., No. D059605 (Summary)

ANTI-SLAPP LITIGATION

Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., No. D059605 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2012)

The California Court of Appeal denied a hospital’s anti-SLAPP motion in connection with a medical staff privileging matter involving a cardiac surgeon.  The surgeon’s ability to interact with others and his patient care came into question. After an investigation of these issues, the Medical Executive Committee (“MEC”) recommended terminating his privileges, and a hearing before a judicial review committee upheld the termination. While an appeal to the board was pending, the surgeon continued his behavior and was summarily suspended. The MEC confirmed the decision, the surgeon exhausted his internal appeals, and his privileges were terminated. The surgeon then petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate and reinstatement in court.

Among other things, he claimed that he was denied fair procedure in the handling of his summary suspension and that the decision of the hospital lacked substantial support. The hospital filed an anti-SLAPP motion against this claim, alleging that the peer review proceedings underlying the claim constituted protected speech. (The anti-SLAPP statute permits a motion to strike claims based on an act in furtherance of free speech or right to petition.)

The court held that while the act of public officials voting on a particular decision constituted an exercise of free speech rights protected under the anti-SLAPP statute, not all decisions made through such procedures “arise” from protected activity within the meaning of the statute. The appellate court found that the district’s decision did not constitute free speech and was not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.