CHRISTINE GASPERETTI, M.D. VS. DEBORAH HEART AND LUNG CENTER(C-000144-08, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0244-13T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Dr. Christine Gasperetti, an interventional cardiologist, resigned from Deborah Heart and Lung Center in June 2008; shortly before and after her resignation the hospital initiated a focused review of her patient care based on complaints by two physician colleagues.
- Deborah engaged an outside peer reviewer to evaluate identified cases; the reviewer reported potentially significant issues in Gasperetti’s clinical judgment and documentation. The hospital’s PPEC discussed the reports and, after Gasperetti’s resignation, terminated the review and forwarded findings to administration.
- Hospital counsel notified the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners that Gasperetti resigned while under review; the hospital also responded to credentialing inquiries by disclosing the report and related materials.
- Gasperetti sued Deborah, certain individuals, and originally the Board, alleging defamation, malicious prosecution, tortious interference, LAD claims, and seeking injunction against posting a physician-profile notice; many defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding (1) the Cullen Act required the hospital to report the resignation while under review and provided immunity if made in good faith and without malice, and (2) the litigation (absolute) privilege protected communications to the Board and related credentialing responses; the court denied reconsideration. Gasperetti appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cullen Act required reporting and shields defendants from civil liability | Gasperetti: she resigned for personal reasons and was unaware of any review; statute should require some awareness by physician before reporting applies | Deborah: statute mandates reporting when a physician resigns while the entity is reviewing patient care, regardless of physician’s awareness; reporting immunity applies if made in good faith | Held: Cullen Act applies; hospital was required to report and is immune because it acted in good faith without malice |
| Whether litigation privilege bars tort claims arising from report to Board | Gasperetti: privilege should not shield alleged malicious, reputation-damaging falsehoods | Defendants: communications to Board and credentialing responses are protected as quasi-judicial and privileged | Held: Privilege applies to the Board notification and related statements; absolute immunity shields those communications |
| Whether plaintiff showed actual malice or bad faith sufficient to defeat statutory immunity | Gasperetti: defendants acted with malice and reckless disregard; genuine issues exist (including dispute over peer-review findings) | Defendants: engaged objective procedures (external reviewer) and had reasonable basis for investigation; no evidence of malice | Held: No evidence of actual malice or bad faith; statutory and common-law immunities stand |
| Whether summary judgment was premature because plaintiff should have been allowed to depose the peer-reviewer (Dr. Al‑Bassam) | Gasperetti: needed to depose the reviewer to challenge the accuracy of the reports and create factual issues | Defendants: hospital’s reliance on external review and compliance with statutory duties sufficed; plaintiff’s assertions were conclusory | Held: Summary judgment appropriate; plaintiff failed to produce competent evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Connor v. Powell, 162 N.J. 397 (N.J. 2000) (bare allegations of malice insufficient to overcome immunity when defendant acted reasonably)
- Zagami, LLC v. Cottrell, 403 N.J. Super. 98 (App. Div. 2008) (litigation privilege extends to quasi-judicial/administrative proceedings based on nature and safeguards of the process)
- Hurwitz v. AHS Hosp. Corp., 438 N.J. Super. 269 (App. Div. 2014) (definition of malice in hospital review/immunity context)