Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
G052367
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- Aram Bonni, a surgeon, sued St. Joseph and Mission Hospital alleging retaliation under Cal. Health & Safety Code §1278.5 for reporting unsafe conditions in the hospitals' robotic surgery program.
- Bonni alleges he repeatedly complained (emails/letters, beginning Oct. 2009) about understaffing, malfunctioning da Vinci robot components, and inadequate training; he claims hospitals then suspended and ultimately denied his medical staff privileges.
- Defendants invoked an anti-SLAPP special motion (Code Civ. Proc. §425.16), arguing Bonni’s claim arose from protected peer‑review communications and that he could not show a probability of prevailing.
- Trial court granted the anti‑SLAPP motion, finding the gravamen of the retaliation claim was protected peer review activity and that Bonni failed prong two (probability of success).
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Bonni’s §1278.5 claim arises from an alleged retaliatory motive (the adverse actions), not from peer‑review statements, so the anti‑SLAPP statute does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonni’s whistleblower retaliation claim arises from protected activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute | Bonni: claim rests on hospitals’ decisions to summarily suspend/deny privileges in retaliation for complaints (i.e., adverse actions/motive) | Hospitals: claim arises from and is based on peer review proceedings and statements during that process, which are protected | Held: Claim arises from alleged retaliatory motive/adverse actions, not protected peer‑review communications; anti‑SLAPP prong one not met |
| Whether statements or proceedings in peer review convert retaliation claim into a SLAPP | Bonni: statements may be evidence of animus but are not the basis of liability | Hospitals: peer review process and related communications are protected and subject to anti‑SLAPP | Held: Following Park, statements can be evidence but do not transform a retaliation/discrimination claim into one arising from protected speech |
| Applicability of Park v. Board of Trustees to peer review/healthcare context | Bonni: Park controls and prevents treating disciplinary decisions as protected where motive is the wrongful act | Hospitals: peer review is distinct, inherently communicative, and concerns public safety—so protected | Held: Park applies; peer review decisions may be communicative but liability here depends on retaliatory motive, not the communications |
| Whether discrimination/retaliation cases are appropriate targets for anti‑SLAPP motions | Bonni: such claims typically are not good candidates for anti‑SLAPP because liability turns on motive, discoverable only after normal litigation | Hospitals: submitting anti‑SLAPP appropriate to test merit and avoid burdens | Held: Court agrees discrimination/retaliation claims rarely fit anti‑SLAPP; allowing anti‑SLAPP here would improperly shift burdens and chill claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) (sets anti‑SLAPP two‑prong test)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) (defendant must show claim arises from protected activity)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (2017) (speech used as evidence of motive does not make discrimination/retaliation claims arise from protected activity)
- Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (2006) (peer review can be an "official proceeding" for some anti‑SLAPP purposes but not dispositive on "arising from" issue)
- Nam v. Regents of University of California, 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (2016) (employer cannot use protected activity as a pretext to invoke anti‑SLAPP where liability rests on discriminatory/retaliatory conduct)