Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV01884, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01884    Hearing Date: December 20, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Chein v. Providence Saint John’s Health Center et al., Case No. 21SMCV01884

Hearing Date December 20, 2023

Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Action Pending Peer Review

Plaintiff doctor Chein alleges defendants wrongfully suspended staff privileges in retaliation for exposing alleged discrimination and substandard patient care at defendants’ hospital. An administrative peer review hearing under Cal. Bus. and Profs. Code §809, challenging a prior peer review that occurred on November 18, 2021, is pending. This lawsuit also challenges the underlying peer review events at issue in the §809 hearing.

This motion was previously set 3/24/23, continued to 4/26/23, then to 5/24/23, then 6/27/23, then 8/9/23, then 9/5/23, then 10/10/23, then 11/13/23, finally to 12/20/23. All these prior continuances were at the parties’ joint request, either by stipulation or by contacting to the court to request a continuance. No new documents were filed for this hearing.

On February 23, 2023 the court issued a tentative ruling denying defendants’ motion for stay of the entire action pending the completion of Chein’s peer review hearing. The court declined to issue a final ruling on this issue, continuing the hearing to allow defendant to present documents for in camera review under Cal. Health and Safety Code §1278.5.

Under §1278.5(h) and (l), in the context of a health facility whistleblower claim, “[t]he medical staff of the health facility may petition the court for an injunction to protect a peer review committee from being required to comply with evidentiary demands on a pending peer review hearing from the member of the medical staff who has filed an action pursuant to this section, if the evidentiary demands from the complainant would impede the peer review process or endanger the health and safety of patients from the health facility during the peer review process.”

Defendant Providence St. John’s argues if witnesses at the peer review hearing are subject to discovery requests from plaintiff, they would be reluctant to participate in peer review, and the process will be impeded. Providence St. John’s points to plaintiff’s requests for the identities and contact information of potential third-party witnesses and for written complaints made by those witnesses.

As the court noted in its prior tentative ruling, it is disinclined to grant a discovery stay. Considering the documents Providence St. John’s presented for in camera review, defendants’ argument regarding the potential chilling effect of plaintiff’s discovery is well-taken. If the staff members named throughout the in camera documents are identified to plaintiff, or if written complaints are made available, such may deter them from appearing at plaintiff’s peer-review hearing. These are precisely the circumstances §1278(h) exists to address. Discovery will be temporarily stayed as to requests asking for the identity and contact information of medical staff who witnessed or reported plaintiff’s alleged misconduct and all documents created by or naming the same staff members. Discovery on other topics may proceed.