California Anti-SLAPP Motions in a Post-Fahlen World

The article describes the effect of the Fahlen v. Sutter Cent. Valley Hosps decision and provides an overview of the role Anti-SLAPP motions play in suits filed by hospitals and physicians. The California Anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to prevent frivolous or malicious lawsuits filed to chill the exercise of certain rights, but the narrow ruling in Fahlen opened the door for Anti-SLAPP challenges to retaliation actions based on peer review activities.

In the article, Ms. Albin-Riley acknowledges that defending such retaliation claims requires thorough investigation and documentation of the reasons for the adverse action. She writes that, “The Fahlen court acknowledged that myriad factual scenarios would, in the future, challenge California courts’ need to simultaneously both serve the patient safety aims of medical staff peer review and provide whistleblower retaliation protections,” noting that “the California courts have shown a keen interest in appropriately balancing all of these competing public policy interests involved in these cases: patient safety, whistleblower protection and the need for peer review hearings and processes to play out unimpeded by unmeritorious litigation.”

Ms. Albin-Riley also discusses the reasoning behind post-Fahlen California cases in which the court did not rely on Fahlen, but instead on well-settled pre-Fahlen authorities, highlighting that even post-Fahlen, the Anti-SLAPP motion can still be used by hospitals and peer reviewers to defeat retaliation challenges. The article goes on to describe the evolution of Anti-SLAPP, peer review and anti-retaliation laws in California and beyond.

To read the Bloomberg BNA article, click here.

If you have questions about Anti-SLAPP motions or peer review actions, please contact one of the professionals listed to the right, or the Arent Fox attorney who regularly handles your legal matters.