Tolwin v. Cedars-SinaiMedicalCenter

Filed 2/13/07  Tolwin v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra Janavs, Judge.  Affirmed.

            John D. Harwell for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Catherine I. Hanson and Gregory M. Abrams for California Medical Association and the California Psychiatric Association, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Bingham McCutchen, Susan L. Hoffman and Hwannie Lee; Gordon D. Simonds,  Jr.; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robin Meadow and Jens B. Koepke, for Defendants and Respondents.

__________________________

Michael H. Tolwin, M.D., a psychiatrist, appeals from the judgment denying his petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, directed to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars) and the Medical Staff of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (medical staff), seeking to vacate the decision of Cedars's board of directors (Board) confirming the report and recommendation of the Board's appeal committee regarding Dr. Tolwin's medical disciplinary matter.  Dr. Tolwin contends Cedars's peer review system violates California law and the original recommendation of the hearing committee to rescind his summary suspension, subsequently modified by the medical executive committee (MEC) and the Board's appeal committee, should be reinstated.  We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1.  Restrictions on Dr. Tolwin's Staff Privileges and His Subsequent Summary Suspension

On April 30, 1998 Michael L. Langberg, M.D., senior vice-president for medical affairs and chief medical officer of Cedars, imposed a summary restriction on Dr.  Tolwin's clinical privileges at Cedars in the form of a mandatory review of Dr.  Tolwin's next 10 admissions to the hospital by the department of psychiatry's peer review committee.  In a letter to Dr. Tolwin, Dr. Langberg described his concerns about four cases, one involving a three-month admission, the others involving Dr. Tolwin's documentation practices.  These concerns had previously been the subject of discussions between Dr. Tolwin and the medical director of the psychiatric unit at the hospital, Dr.  Alan Schneider, and the chair of the psychiatry department, Dr. Peter Panzarino.

Following its review of Dr. Tolwin's next 10 admissions and an interview with Dr.  Tolwin, the peer review committee concluded Dr. Tolwin's clinical performance fell below the standard of care for both the department of psychiatry and the community and recommended immediate removal of Dr. Tolwin's staff privileges.  The committee also recommended that Dr. Tolwin be ineligible for reinstatement for two years and that, in the event of reapplication for staff privileges, he demonstrate satisfactory completion of specified educational and clinical supervision requirements.  These recommendations were adopted by Dr. Langberg.  On May 26, 1998 Dr. Tolwin was notified of the charges against him and advised his staff privileges were suspended immediately and his privileges and membership on the medical staff would be terminated subject to his right of appeal.  An amended notice of charges was provided to Dr. Tolwin on June 24, 1998.

2.  Dr. Tolwin's Appeal and the Report of the Hearing Committee

Pursuant to his rights as detailed in the medical staff's bylaws,[1] Dr. Tolwin, through counsel, requested a hearing on all charges against him, as well as a review of the April 30, 1998 summary restriction and the May 26, 1998 summary suspension and recommendation for termination of all privileges and membership.  Cedars convened a hearing committee of physicians from inside and outside the department of psychiatry, which heard testimony, including expert testimony, on 30 hearing dates between July 1998 and October 2002.[2]  Both parties were permitted to present closing briefs.  After reviewing the briefs, the hearing committee heard oral argument on December 9, 2002.[3] 

The hearing committee issued its decision and written report on February 5, 2003, concluding, â€