Plaintiff Sunil Sujan, a physician who formerly practiced medicine with defendant Corona Regional Medical Center (CRMC), filed this lawsuit alleging CRMC and three individual defendants (Alaa Afifi, M.D., Imdad N. Yusufaly, M.D., and Ahmed El-Bershawi, M.D.) engaged in a concerted scheme to defame him and ruin his professional reputation, and summarily suspended his admitting privileges. Sujan’s wife Nina Patel also sued defendants alleging a single cause of action for loss of consortium.
Sujan appeals from the judgment entered for defendants after the trial court granted their motion for summary judgment. The trial court found, inter alia, that Sujan failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before suing for damages. According to Sujan, he was excused from exhausting his remedies in the available peer review process because he had entered into an agreement with CRMC to lift his suspension and reinstate his admitting privileges, and, because that agreement avoided the requirement that CRMC report the suspension to the California Medical Board, it rendered futile any relief he might have achieved through an administrative appeal. He also appeals from a postjudgment order granting, in part, defendants’ motion for attorney fees as provided for in CRMC’s bylaws. Sujan contends the fee provision in the bylaws conflicts with Business and Professions Code section 809.9, which provides for attorney fees in lawsuits challenging peer review decisions, and he argues defendants cannot recover fees under that statute because the trial court made no finding that the lawsuit was frivolous or that Sujan had acted in bad faith during the litigation. Finally, even if the fee provision under the bylaws is not preempted by statute, Sujan argues it is unconscionable and unenforceable.
In a cross-appeal from the attorney fees order, defendants argue the trial court erred by (1) finding Patel could not be held liable for attorney fees because she was not a signatory to the bylaws, (2) finding the attorney declaration filed with the fee motion was insufficient to introduce billing invoices in support of their claim for attorney fees incurred for work performed by the prior attorneys, and (3) reducing the hourly rates for work performed by two of their current attorneys.
On Sujan’s appeal, we conclude (1) he has not met his burden of establishing with evidence a triable issue of material fact on defendants’ defense by establishing he was excused from exhausting his administrative remedies and (2) the trial court correctly found defendants were entitled to recover attorney fees from Sujan as provided in the bylaws.
On defendants’ cross-appeal, we conclude the trial court correctly denied the motion for attorney fees in part.
There are 0 comments