California high court to rule on peer reviewer shield

The state medical association argues the approach would hurt doctors subject to unfair peer review, while hospitals say physician reviewers need more protection from lawsuits.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. June 12, 2006.

California's highest court will decide for the first time whether peer review committees are protected under a state law aimed at preventing unfounded lawsuits designed to squelch criticism of public endeavors.

About 30 states have such measures, dubbed anti-SLAPP because their intent is to stop "strategic lawsuits against public participation." California's statute applies to any "official proceeding authorized by law" or any speech "in connection with a public issue."

Whether peer review falls into these categories will be up to the state Supreme Court after split decisions in California's 4th Appellate District. Oral arguments are to be held this month.

The appeals court conflict prompted the California Medical Assn. and the California Hospital Assn. to join the debate with opposing friend-of-the-court briefs.

"Peer review itself is conducted in a very confidential setting and does not fall into any of the areas the Legislature intended" in the anti-SLAPP law, said CMA General Counsel Gregory M. Abrams.

Other laws already give the system substantial insulation, making it difficult for physicians subject to unfair peer review to take their grievances to court, he said. If peer reviewers are granted additional protection via the anti-SLAPP statute, Abrams said, "The message is no doctor is going to sue any medical staff again because the risk is so high."

On the other hand, the CHA argues that while peer review is confidential, it is done for a public purpose mandated by state law and should fall under the anti-SLAPP statute.