Natarajan v. Dignity Health

• Decision Date: 12 August 2021
• Docket Number: S259364
• Citation: 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 1,492 P.3d 294,11 Cal.5th 1095
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Sundar NATARAJAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, Defendant and Respondent.

11 Cal.5th 1095

492 P.3d 294

282 Cal.Rptr.3d 1

Sundar NATARAJAN, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.DIGNITY HEALTH, Defendant and Respondent.

S259364

Supreme Court of California.

August 12, 2021

Law Offices of Stephen D. Schear, Stephen D. Schear ; Justice First, Jenny Chi-Chin Huang, Oakland; and Tara Natarajan, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Barry S. Landsberg, Los Angeles, Doreen Wener Shenfeld, Joanna S. McCallum and Craig S. Rutenberg, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.

Davis Wright Tremaine and Terri D. Keville, Los Angeles, for John Muir Health, Adventist Health, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, MemorialCare Health System, Providence St. Joseph Health, Sharp Healthcare and Sutter Health as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Arent Fox, Lowell C. Brown, Sarah BenatorLos Angeles, and Diane Roldán, San Francisco, for California Hospital Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Nossaman, Rosenberg, Shpall & Zeigen, Carlo Coppo, Carlsbad; Patrick K. Moore Law Corporation, Patrick K. Moore ; Hanson Bridgett, Glenda M. Zarbock, San Francisco; James R. Lahana, Los Angeles; and John D. Harwell, Manhattan Beach, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, H. Thomas Watson, Peder K. Batalden, Burbank, and Joshua C. McDaniel for Scripps Health and Regents of the University of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Francisco J. Silva, Long X. Do, Sacramento, and Joseph M. Cachuela for California Medical Association as Amicus Curiae.

Freeman Mathis & Gary, Marc J. Shrake, Los Angeles; and Joseph P. Wood for American Academy of Emergency Medicine as Amicus Curiae.

Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.

Under California's peer review statute, a hospital must afford a physician a fair hearing before revoking the physician's staff privileges.( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809 et seq. )A panel of the physician's peers generally serves as the trier of fact at these proceedings.Proceedings before a peer review panel may be conducted by a hearing officer who makes evidentiary and procedural rulings, but who may not vote on the merits.To ensure impartiality, the statute provides that neither panel members nor hearing officers may gain a "direct financial benefit from the outcome."( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.2, subds. (a) & (b).)

The question in this case is whether a person hired by a hospital to serve as a hearing officer may be disqualified for financial bias under Business and Professions Code section 809.2, subdivision (b), on grounds that the officer has an incentive to favor the hospital in order to increase the chances of receiving future appointments.The Court of Appeal in this case answered no.We reach a different conclusion.While a hearing officer's interest in future employment is not automatically disqualifying, neither is it categorically beyond the reach of the statute.In some cases, depending on the circumstances, the hearing officer's financial interest in currying favor with the hiring entity may create an intolerable risk of bias requiring disqualification under the statute.But because the record does not establish this is such a case, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I.

A.

In California, hospitals are composed of an administrative governing body that oversees hospital operations and a medical staff that provides medical services and ensures its members provide adequate medical care to patients.A physician who wishes to practice at a hospital must maintain staff privileges.The termination of staff privileges can significantly limit the physician's ability to practice medicine.For that reason, before staff privileges can be terminated, the physician must be afforded certain procedural protections, including the opportunity for review of the termination decision.( El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center(2013)56 Cal.4th 976, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 533, 301 P.3d 1146( El-Attar );Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 70703, subd. (a).)

Hospital peer review originated as a purely voluntary process for handling recommendations to suspend or terminate physician staff privileges, but by now has become firmly embedded in California law.For decades before the peer review statute was enacted in 1989, California courts had held that hospitals must provide certain protections to physicians facing the denial of staff privileges.For private hospitals like St. Joseph's Medical Center of Stockton, the obligation was rooted in the common law doctrine of fair procedure, which applies to the membership decisions of certain private organizations affecting the public interest.( El-Attar , supra , 56 Cal.4th at pp. 986–987, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 533, 301 P.3d 1146, citing, inter alia, Anton v. San Antonio Community Hosp.(1977)19 Cal.3d 802, 140 Cal.Rptr. 442, 567 P.2d 1162;see, e.g., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court(2005)128 Cal.App.4th 85, 102, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 744;Applebaum v. Board of Directors(1980)104 Cal.App.3d 648, 657, 163 Cal.Rptr. 831( Applebaum ).)Fair procedure required hospitals to afford physicians certain fundamental procedural protections, including adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision maker.( El-Attar , at pp. 986–987, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 533, 301 P.3d 1146;Applebaum , at p. 657, 163 Cal.Rptr. 831.)

When the Legislature enacted the peer review statute in 1989, it both codified the peer review process and made peer review "part of a comprehensive statutory scheme for the licensure of California physicians."( Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital & Medical Center(2009)45 Cal.4th 1259, 1267, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 516, 203 P.3d 1113( Mileikowsky );seeBus. & Prof. Code, § 809 et seq. )The two primary goals of the peer review statute are "to protect the health and welfare of the people of California by excluding through the peer review mechanism ‘those healing arts practitioners who provide substandard care or who engage in professional misconduct’ " and "to protect competent practitioners from being barred from practice for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons."( Mileikowsky , at p. 1267, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 516, 203 P.3d 1113.)

The bulk of the peer review statute's requirements are aimed at private hospitals, like the hospital at issue in this case.(SeeBus. & Prof. Code, § 809.7.)Under these provisions, when the peer review body — often a hospital medical staff committee — recommends denying, revoking, or otherwise restricting a physician's staff privileges for reasons of professional performance, the physician may request a hearing.(Id. , § 809.1;seeid. , §§ 805, subd. (a)(1)(B)(i), 809, subd. (b)[defining "peer review body"].)The hearing shall take place before a trier of fact who is either (1) an arbitrator or arbitrators selected through a mutually acceptable process, or (2)a panel of fellow practitioners including, where feasible, a member who practices the same specialty as the physician.(Id. , § 809.2, subd. (a)( section 809.2(a) ).)

When the hearing is held before a peer review panel, a hearing officer may be appointed to preside.( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.2, subd. (b)( section 809.2(b) ).)Unlike the members of the panel, the hearing officer need not be a medical practitioner; often the hearing officer is a lawyer.¹If a hearing officer is selected, the hearing officer is tasked with making procedural and evidentiary decisions, including ruling on requests for access to information, requests for continuances, and challenges to the impartiality of the panel members or hearing officer.( Id. , § 809.2, subds. (c) – (h).)The hearing officer may not, however, vote on the outcome; the ultimate decision is left exclusively to the panel.( Id. , §§ 809.2(b), 809.4, subd. (a)(1).)²

The statute provides that hearing officers and panel members alike "shall gain no direct financial benefit from the outcome."( § 809.2(a) & (b).)

The physician may question the panel members and hearing officer on voir dire, and has "the right to challenge the impartiality of any member or hearing officer."( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.2, subd. (c).)The hearing officer, if one has been selected, is responsible for ruling on such challenges.(Ibid. )

B.

St. Joseph's Medical Center of Stockton is a private, self-governing hospital owned by Dignity Health, a California-based health care organization.In 2007, St. Joseph's hired Sundar Natarajan, M.D., as director of its hospitalist program.About two years later, Natarajan left this position and started his own hospitalist group that also operated out of St. Joseph's.Beginning in 2011, the St. Joseph's medical staff raised concerns about Natarajan's hospitalist practice, including deficient recordkeeping, excessive length of patient stay, and misuse of consultants.The medical staff repeatedly reprimanded and issued fines to Natarajan because of his recordkeeping deficiencies.Although Natarajan acknowledged the problem, the recordkeeping issues persisted.By August 2013, the chair of the medical department notified Natarajan that a committee of physicians would launch an investigation into these alleged administrative deficiencies.After the investigation, the committee recommended revoking Natarajan's privileges.The medical executive committee then reviewed the recommendation, considered Natarajan's responsive presentation, and adopted the recommendation to terminate his medical staff membership and hospital privileges.

Natarajan requested a peer review hearing to review the recommendation.In accordance with St. Joseph's bylaws, the chief of the medical staff selected physicians to serve on the hearing panel, and the hospital president exercised authority delegated by the medical staff to select A. Robert Singer, a semiretired attorney, to serve as the hearing officer.

Invoking his statutory right to "challenge the impartiality of any member or hearing officer" under Business and Professions Code...