Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
11 Cal.5th 995
Cal.2021Background
- Dr. Aram Bonni, an OB/GYN, faced summary suspensions, peer-review hearings, reports to the Medical Board and NPDB, settlement with one hospital, and nonrenewal/termination of staff privileges at two affiliated hospitals after raising patient-safety concerns.
- Bonni sued for unlawful retaliation under Health & Safety Code §1278.5 (and related statutes), alleging multiple discrete retaliatory acts (suspensions, reports, defamatory statements, prolonging peer review, breach of settlement, etc.).
- The hospitals moved under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. §425.16) to strike the retaliation cause of action, arguing the claims arose from protected speech/petitioning in peer review.
- The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding retaliation claims premised on retaliatory motive were not subject to anti-SLAPP. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the scope of anti‑SLAPP protection in peer‑review contexts.
- The Supreme Court concluded statements made in connection with peer review and reports to licensing/databank authorities are protected, but the noncommunicative disciplinary acts (suspensions, termination, nonrenewal) are not protected conduct under the anti‑SLAPP statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does §425.16 protect claims arising from peer‑review communications? | Bonni: Some allegedly false/retaliatory statements were not protected or were merely evidence of retaliation. | Hospitals: Peer review communications are "official proceeding" statements and thus protected under §425.16(e)(2). | Held: Statements made in connection with peer review and required reports to licensing/databanks are protected activity under §425.16(e)(2). |
| 2) When a cause of action pleads mixed acts (protected + unprotected), should court apply a "gravamen" test or analyze acts individually? | Bonni: Court should consider the gravamen/principal thrust of the entire cause of action. | Hospitals: Baral requires claim-by-claim (act-by-act) analysis; moving party must identify protected acts. | Held: Baral controls — courts must analyze each act or set of acts supplying a basis for relief; cannot decide based on an ill-defined "gravamen." |
| 3) Are disciplinary decisions (suspension, termination, nonrenewal) themselves protected as "conduct in furtherance of" speech/petitioning (§425.16(e)(4))? | Bonni: Disciplinary acts are non‑communicative and not protected; if disciplinary acts were retaliatory they should be litigable. | Hospitals: Discipline furthers petition/speech on public issue (patient safety) and thus is protected. | Held: Disciplinary acts are noncommunicative and not protected under §425.16(e)(4); hospitals failed to show these acts substantially furthered their ability to speak or petition on public issues. |
| 4) Are settlement negotiations and reports to the Medical Board/NPDB protected? | Bonni: Settlement negotiations involved fraud; reports were the harmful consequence of suspensions. | Hospitals: Pre‑suit negotiation and mandatory reporting are petitioning/communicative acts entitled to anti‑SLAPP protection. | Held: Pre‑suit and settlement communications and mandatory reports to the Medical Board/NPDB are protected petitioning/speech (thus subject to anti‑SLAPP review); breach‑of‑settlement claim based on a protected communication arises from protected activity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006) (peer review proceedings qualify as "official proceedings" for §425.16(e)(2))
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (anti‑SLAPP requires act‑by‑act analysis where claims rest on mixed protected and unprotected acts)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (speech in connection with an official proceeding is protected, but decisions resulting from such speech are not necessarily protected)
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (Cal. 2019) (allegations of illicit motive do not automatically remove claims from anti‑SLAPP; acts alleged must themselves be protected)
- FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (Cal. 2019) (two‑part test for whether speech is "in connection with" a public issue and thus protected under §425.16(e)(4))
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (plaintiff must show minimal merit at second step of anti‑SLAPP)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 2003) (filing a lawsuit is petitioning activity entitled to First Amendment protection)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) (communications preparatory to litigation are protected petitioning activity)