Axline v. Saint John's Hosp. & Health Center
Decision Date | 06 May 1998 |
Docket Number | No. B105689,B105689 |
Citation | 63 Cal.App.4th 907,74 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3466, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4723 Stanton G. AXLINE, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. |
Curtis & Connolly, Tom Curtis, Freeburg, Judy & Nettels and Steven J. Freeburg, Pasadena, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
McDermott, Will & Emery, Lee L. Blackman, Los Angeles, and Thomas A. Ryan, Anaheim, for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant, Dr. Stanton G. Axline, sued Saint John's Hospital (the Hospital) when it denied his application to become a member of the medical staff. The Hospital's demurrer was sustained without leave to amend upon the trial court's conclusion that Dr. Axline had signed a release that effectively shielded the Hospital from liability. The trial court also concluded that Dr. Axline had failed to plead the elements of the malicious prosecution tort. We conclude the release does not apply to this case. We also conclude that Dr. Axline properly pled a claim for malicious
prosecution. We therefore reverse the judgment of dismissal.
On appeal from the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded allegations in the complaint. (Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 210, 266 Cal.Rptr. 638, 786 P.2d 365.) The following summary is taken from the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading.
Dr. Axline applied to join the Hospital's medical staff. He was required to sign, and did sign, a release which provides in part: (Emphasis added.)
Dr. Axline alleges several improprieties in the procedures followed by the Hospital in processing his application. He asserts the Hospital violated its bylaws on multiple occasions and failed to provide him an opportunity to address allegations brought against him. He does not allege improper communication between the Hospital and any other party. Based on the alleged violations, Dr. Axline sued for intentional interference with practice of profession, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and malicious prosecution.
In its demurrer, the Hospital argued that by signing the release Dr. Axline gave up all rights against the Hospital in connection with his application to join the medical staff. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court found:
DISCUSSION
Civil Code section 43.7, subdivision (b), provides: "There shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any ... committee of a professional staff of a licensed hospital (provided the professional staff operates pursuant to written bylaws that have been approved by the governing board of the hospital), for any act or proceeding undertaken or performed within the scope of the functions of the committee which is formed to maintain the professional standards of the society established by its bylaws, or any member of any peer review committee whose purpose is to review the quality of medical ... services rendered by physicians ... for any act or proceeding undertaken or performed in reviewing the quality of the medical ... services rendered by physicians ... if the professional society, committee, or board member acts without malice, has made a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter as to which he, she, or it acts, and acts in reasonable belief that the action taken by him, her, or it is warranted by the facts known to him, her, or it after the reasonable effort to obtain facts."
Subdivision (e) of the same statute provides: (Emphasis added.)
Under the plain terms of the statute, section 43.7 provides conditional immunity for individuals, not hospitals. Therefore, Hospital cannot invoke this section as a shield to liability. (See Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 465, 481, 131 Cal.Rptr. 90, 551 P.2d 410 [].)
Civil Code section 43.8 provides absolute immunity to persons who "communicate certain information to medical staff committees." (Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1225, fn. 6, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 397, 859 P.2d 96.) It states in part: "[T]here shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any person on account of the communication of information in the possession of such person to any hospital ... [or] peer review committee, ... " (Emphasis added.)
The Legislature did not specifically exclude hospitals from the scope of Civil Code section 43.8, as it did in section 43.7. Given the express language, the Hospital does not explain how it can fall within the definition of "any person." But even if somehow it could, the alleged misconduct does not relate to the communication of information to a hospital or to a peer review committee. Thus, the immunity provided in section 43.8 for "the communication of information" is not triggered.
The Hospital also directs our attention to Civil Code section 47, subdivisions (b) and (c), the so-called "litigation privilege." (Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 28, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 518.) The "litigation privilege is intended to encourage parties to feel free to exercise their fundamental right of resort to the courts for assistance in the resolution of their disputes, without being chilled from exercising this right by the fear that they may subsequently be sued in a derivative tort action arising out of something said or done in the context of the litigation." (Id. at p. 29, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 518.) Section 47, subdivision (b) protects publications or broadcasts that occur in (1) a The privilege in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c) applies to "a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital
...604.) Plaintiff urges us to limit "person" in section 43.8 to humans. In support, he cites Axline v. Saint John's Hospital and Health Center (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 907, 74 Cal.Rptr .2d 385 (Axline), in which a doctor sued a hospital after it had denied his application to join its medical sta......
-
Estate of Tucker ex rel. Tucker v. Interscope
...a lawsuit is as actionable as malice in originating it." 14. The Tuckers mistakenly rely on Axline v. Saint John's Hospital and Health Center, 63 Cal.App.4th 907, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 (1998), disapproved on other grounds by Hassan v. Mercy Am. River Hosp., 31 Cal.4th 709, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 623, 7......
-
Sierra Club Foundation v. Graham
...cause. (Sheldon Appel, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 879-881, 254 Cal.Rptr. 336, 765 P.2d 498; Axline v. Saint John's Hospital & Health Center (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 907, 917, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 385.) Based on the jury's answer to interrogatories, 10 the court ruled that Graham did not have probable c......
-
Garner v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...judicial or administrative proceedings against another with malice and without probable cause. See Axlinev. St. John's Hosp. & Health Center, 63 Cal. App. 4th 907, 915 (1998), disapproved of on other grounds by Hassan v. Mercy American River Hosp., 31 Cal.4th 709, 716 (2003); Hardy v. Vial,......
-
Procedural torts
...denial of a physician’s application to become a member of the hospital’s medical staff. Axline v. Saint John’s Hosp. & Health Ctr. , 63 Cal. App. 4th 907, 918, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385 (1998). Note: Hassan v. Mercy American River Hosp. disapproved Axline on the issue of privilege for entities a......