10/14/2024 | News release | Distributed by Public on 10/14/2024 08:53
Find more information on Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System and Dignity Health v. Mounts.
Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Mounts practiced at Dignity Health's San Luis Obispo French Hospital Center. Dr. Mounts complained that he was not getting sufficient staff support or adequate time in the operating room to perform complex surgeries. In 2015, the hospital's medical staff leaders became aware of concerns about Dr. Mounts' clinical competence and requested he refrain from operating until they completed an FPPE of his patient care. He voluntarily accepted the restriction on his clinical privileges. Two days later, the Medical Executive Committee (MEC) informed him that the restriction would be reported to the Medical Board and the NPDB if it lasted more than 30 days. By the time Dr. Mount's attorney notified the hospital that he wanted to lift his voluntary restriction, 30 days had passed, and the hospital filed legally mandated reports to the Medical Board and the NPDB.
Several weeks later, the MEC met with Dr. Mounts regarding the ongoing FPPE. After the meeting, the chief of staff called Dr. Mounts advising him that the MEC's decision would likely be unfavorable for him and recommending that he resign. Dr. Mounts resigned in 2016. After his resignation, Dr. Mounts applied for positions at two out-of-state hospitals. Dignity Health declined to provide records relating to the FPPE to either hospital.
After Dr. Mounts resigned, Dignity Health sued to recover a recruiting bonus it had paid him. In response, Dr. Mounts filed a cross-complaint, alleging Dignity Health's conduct constituted retaliation in violation of Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Dignity Health filed an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike Dr. Mounts' cross-complaint, arguing that all of Dr. Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected from liability under California law.
Dr. Mounts claimed that after he raised patient safety complaints, Dignity Health retaliated against him in nine respects:
The Court of Appeal held all these acts are protected by Civil Code Section 47. The actions under Categories 1, 2, and 3 are protected by the common interest privilege (Section 47(c)) because the hospital, the medical staff, and Dr. Mounts shared a common interest in his surgical practice. Although the common interest privilege does not protect communications made with malice, Dr. Mounts presented no evidence that Dignity Health communicated with malice about the conditions of his surgical practice.
Additionally, the actions in Categories 2 through 9 are protected by the litigation privilege (Section 47(b)). That privilege protects all communications made as part of an official proceeding, including communications made in connection with peer review. Notably, the court explained that Dignity Health's "failure to communicate with prospective employers by providing those entities with records from the FPPE" was "silence that communicates information related to the FPPE or its conclusion," and thus also privileged.
Based on the analysis showing that the litigation privilege and common interest privilege applied, the Court of Appeal concluded that all Dr. Mounts' claims fail and affirmed the trial court's order granting Dignity Health's anti-SLAPP motion.
ArentFox Schiff represents the defendants in Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System. For more information, contact the authors of this article.