Armin v. Riverside Community Hospital, 5 Cal. App. 5th 810

Background

Dr. Sean Armin, a neurosurgeon with privileges at Riverside Community Hospital (RCH), complained internally (Dec 2011–Mar 2012) that other neurosurgeons delayed or refused urgent care and monopolized call coverage; he alleged some religiously discriminatory conduct by colleagues earlier.
In Jan–Mar 2012 other neurosurgeons (Douglas, Clark) initiated a hospital peer‑review process against Armin that led to a summary suspension; the peer review (JRC) hearing remained unfinished when litigation began.
Armin filed a civil whistleblower suit under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 (Nov 2012), plus FEHA religious‑discrimination claims; he also named the hospital and individual doctors.
RCH moved under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute to strike the § 1278.5 claim (arguing administrative exhaustion required) and sought dismissal of claims against individual doctors; the trial commissioner granted the anti‑SLAPP motion as to § 1278.5 and awarded fees, but denied it as to the FEHA claims.
The Court of Appeal (4th Dist., Div. 3) reversed in part: it held a physician need not complete the internal peer‑review process before filing a § 1278.5 action, and that individual physicians cannot be sued under § 1278.5; it affirmed denial of the anti‑SLAPP motion as to Armin’s religious discrimination claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Must a physician complete internal peer‑review before filing a § 1278.5 action?	Armin: No; § 1278.5 and its legislative history allow concurrent civil suits and peer review.	RCH: Yes; Fahlen did not eliminate internal exhaustion — physician must finish peer review before filing.	A physician need not complete the internal peer‑review process before filing § 1278.5; Fahlen and the statute permit simultaneous proceedings.
2) May an individual physician be named as a defendant under § 1278.5?	Armin: § 1278.5(i) defines “health facility” to include “medical staff,” so individual doctors may be sued.	RCH: Statute targets the facility (and unified medical‑staff entity), not individual staff members.	Held for RCH: § 1278.5 does not authorize suits against individual physicians; “medical staff” refers to the uniplural corporate body.
3) Does the anti‑SLAPP statute bar Armin’s § 1278.5 claim because it arises from protected peer‑review activity?	Armin: Even if protected activity, the § 1278.5 claim has minimal merit (statutory presumption, prima facie showing).	RCH: Peer‑review is protected petitioning and suit should be struck; exhaustion required.	Trial court erred to strike § 1278.5; on anti‑SLAPP prong two Armin made a prima facie showing and the claim survives.
4) Are Armin’s FEHA religious‑discrimination claims subject to anti‑SLAPP because they’re intertwined with peer review?	Armin: Claims arose from pre‑peer‑review conduct (scheduling/holiday issues) and are not protected petitioning.	RCH: The claims are intertwined with peer review and thus protected by anti‑SLAPP.	Held for Armin: FEHA claims arise from unprotected conduct before peer review and survive anti‑SLAPP; dismissal (if warranted) should be via summary judgment, not anti‑SLAPP.

Key Cases Cited

Fahlen v. Sutter Cent. Valley Hospitals, 58 Cal.4th 655 (2014) (Supreme Court: physicians need not obtain judicial mandamus victory before filing § 1278.5; legislative history permits concurrent peer review and civil suits)
Westlake Cmty. Hosp. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 465 (1976) (prior rule requiring administrative and judicial exhaustion before tort remedies against hospital officials)
Nesson v. Frye, 204 Cal.App.4th 65 (2012) (intermediate appellate decision holding exhaustion/mandamus required; disapproved to extent inconsistent with Fahlen)
Kibler v. N. Inyo Cnty. Local Hosp. Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (2006) (peer‑review proceedings are protected petitioning activity under anti‑SLAPP)
Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (clarifies anti‑SLAPP two‑prong analysis and treatment of mixed claims)