Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals
58 Cal. 4th 655
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Fahlen, a kidney specialist, was terminated from Memorial Medical Center staff privileges by Sutter Central Valley Hospital after peer review.
- He sued the hospital and officers asserting retaliation for his whistleblowing on substandard nursing care, seeking damages and reinstatement among other relief.
- The hospital proceedings proceeded through ad hoc investigative committee, MEC review, JRC hearing, and a Board decision reversing the JRC’s findings and terminating privileges.
- Fahlen did not seek mandamus to overturn the Board’s decision and later filed this civil action alleging whistleblower retaliation and related claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing exhaustion of judicial remedies was required and that the §1278.5 claim arose from protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a mandamus Mandate be pursued first? | Fahlen contends exhaustion is not required under §1278.5. | Hospital argued Westlake-like exhaustion requirement applies to §1278.5 claims. | No mandamus exhaustion required before §1278.5 suit. |
| Does §1278.5 permit a whistleblower suit without mandamus when retaliation is alleged against a peer-review action? | Section 1278.5 permits relief without mandamus preconditions. | Westlake framework demands mandamus to challenge the quasi-judicial action. | Statutory whistleblower claim may proceed without mandamus override of peer review. |
| Does HCQIA preempt or otherwise limit §1278.5 remedies? | HCQIA immunity might bar state remedies when peer review is involved. | HCQIA does not preclude state whistleblower remedies; immunity is context-specific. | HCQIA does not preclude §1278.5 remedies; does not require mandamus exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 465 (1976) (exhaustion required before tort claims based on quasi-judicial hospital decisions; limits on collateral attacks)
- Arbuckle, 45 Cal.4th 963 (2009) (Whistleblower Act exhaustion and damages remedy; no mandamus prerequisite)
- Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 48 Cal.4th 760 (2010) (CSU whistleblower action; exhaustion not required to pursue damages remedy)
- Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (2008) (exhaustion considerations for UC whistleblower claims; later amended statute 8547.10)
- Campbell v. Regents of University of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (2005) (exhaustion requirements for whistleblower protections; legislative intent not to override procedures)
- Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 204 Cal.App.4th 65 (2012) (Westlake-like exhaustion applied; disapproved in Fahlen)
- Anton v. San Antonio Community Hosp., 19 Cal.3d 802 (1977) (mandamus review weight on hospital quasi-judicial decisions; later modified by 1094.5)
- HCQIA (federal statute; not a state case), 42 U.S.C. § 11111 et seq. (1986) (federal immunity for professional review actions; basis for discussion)