Kuljit S. Hundal is a licensed emergency room physician who was a member of the medical staff of the Adventist Health Medical Center Tehachapi (medical staff), which serves Adventist Health Tehachapi Valley (hospital). Stallion Springs Medical Services (Stallion Springs), a medical corporation that was responsible for staffing and scheduling emergency providers at the hospital’s emergency department, contracted with Hundal to provide his services to the hospital as an independent contractor. After a patient complained about Hundal’s conduct in the hospital’s emergency department, the hospital instructed Stallion Springs to remove Hundal from the emergency department schedule. Stallion Springs did so and after its own investigation, terminated its contract with Hundal.
Hundal sued the hospital, medical staff, and Stallion Springs, alleging they failed to comply with statutory and common law procedural requirements in connection with his removal from the emergency department schedule. After the hospital and medical staff were dismissed from the action following a settlement, Stallion Springs moved for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication on the two claims asserted against it for violation of the common law right of fair procedure and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, granted the alternative motion for summary adjudication as to the emotional distress claim, and denied the alternative motion for summary adjudication as to the claim for violation of the common law right of fair procedure.
Stallion Springs petitions for a writ of mandate challenging the denial of summary adjudication as to the common law right of fair procedure claim. Stallion Springs contends Hundal cannot maintain that claim against it because the common law doctrine of fair procedure with respect to physician discipline has been superseded by the statutes that address the due process requirements for hospital peer review (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 805–809.9) (the peer review statute), which does not apply to Stallion Springs. Stallion Springs alternatively contends the common law right of fair procedure does not extend to a staffing company. We agree with Stallion Springs that the right of fair procedure does not apply to Stallion Springs as a matter of law, therefore, the trial court erred in denying the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandate.
There are 0 comments