Dhillon v. John Muir Health
218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Dr. Jatinder Dhillon, a thoracic surgeon, was accused by a colleague of verbal and physical aggression; the joint Medical Executive Committee (MEC) required both doctors to attend anger-management, which Dhillon refused.
- John Muir Health (John Muir) threatened a suspension of Dhillon’s clinical privileges if he did not attend; Dhillon requested a hearing before the Judicial Review Committee (JRC) which John Muir denied.
- Dhillon filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in superior court, alleging denial of a JRC hearing and due process violations; he sought vacatur of discipline and a JRC hearing among other relief.
- The superior court granted the petition in part: it held Dhillon was entitled to a JRC (or other appropriate) hearing, effectively setting aside the discipline and issued a peremptory writ directing John Muir to hold a hearing; all other claims were denied.
- John Muir appealed; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as not final and nonappealable, deepening a split of authority over whether remand orders in administrative mandamus are appealable.
- The California Supreme Court granted review and held the superior court’s partial grant (remand for further administrative proceedings) was a final, appealable judgment, reversing the Court of Appeal and reinstating the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court order granting a writ of administrative mandamus that remands for further administrative proceedings is an appealable final judgment | Dhillon: Such remand is not a "final judgment" under CCP §904.1 and §1094.5(f); the order did not fit the statute’s listed judgment types | John Muir: The remand order is final and appealable because it disposes of the writ proceeding and leaves nothing for further judicial action; immediate appeal required to protect rights | The Supreme Court held the remand order was an appealable final judgment (reversing Court of Appeal) because it finally resolved the writ proceeding and practical unreviewability counsels in favor of appealability |
| Whether prior summary denial of a writ petition by the Court of Appeal (Palma procedure) supplied the appellant with the "functional equivalent" of an appeal | Dhillon: Court of Appeal’s Palma notice and summary denial amount to careful appellate review, so John Muir already received review | John Muir: Extraordinary-writ procedures differ from appeals; summary denials can rest on procedural grounds and do not provide the same rights (written opinion, oral argument) as an appeal | The Court rejected Dhillon’s argument: Palma/writ denial is not equivalent to a direct appeal and does not preclude appeal under CCP §904.1 |
| Whether prior decisions categorically barring appeals of remand orders remain controlling | Dhillon relied on several appellate cases holding remand orders nonappealable | John Muir argued those cases are inconsistent with final-judgment principles and practical unreviewability | Court disapproved those decisions to the extent they state a categorical rule that remands in administrative mandamus are never appealable |
| Whether practical unreviewability affects finality | Dhillon: alternative review (internal appeals, later mandamus) makes the remand nonfinal | John Muir: No adequate later opportunity to challenge the superior court’s interpretation of bylaws, so immediate appeal necessary | Court applied practical unreviewability principle and found immediate appeal appropriate where later review would likely be foreclosed |
Key Cases Cited
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal.4th 688 (trial-court decree final when only compliance/noncompliance remains)
- Finkelstein v. Sullivan, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) (assessing when remand orders are immediately appealable based on remand’s nature and practical unreviewability)
- Kumar v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc., 218 Cal.App.3d 1050 (1990) (Court of Appeal held remand not appealable where later review opportunities existed)
- Gillis v. Dental Bd. of California, 206 Cal.App.4th 311 (2012) (relevant appellate decision treating remand orders as nonappealable — disapproved to extent categorical)
- Board of Dental Examiners v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 1424 (1998) (appellate case holding remand order nonappealable — disapproved to extent categorical)
- Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 288 (final-judgment test: terminates litigation and leaves only enforcement)
- Chugach Alaska Corp. v. Lujan, 915 F.2d 454 (9th Cir. 1990) (federal authority recognizing exception when remand would make review effectively foreclosed)