OMeara v. Palomar-Pomerado Health System
Dr. Patrick O'Meara, the former chair of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Palomar Medical Center (Palomar), sued Palomar and related entities, and various individuals on Palomar's medical peer review committees, alleging these defendants improperly retaliated against him because he expressed dissatisfaction with a managed care entity's involvement in medical decisions. After this court reversed a prior judgment granting defendants' demurrer, defendants brought a motion to strike the second amended complaint under California's anti SLAPP law. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.) The superior court found the anti SLAPP statute governed the complaint, but that Dr. O'Meara met his burden to show a probability of prevailing on his claims. The superior court thus entered an order denying defendants' anti SLAPP motion.
In reaching this conclusion, court analyze separately the two challenged disciplinary actions imposed by Palomar's peer review committee: a probation imposed in February 2000 and an extension of the probation imposed in April 2001. As explained, Dr. O'Meara met his burden to show a probability of prevailing on his claims based on the April 2001 probation, and defendants did not show a probability that their asserted exhaustion defenses would preclude these claims. Court base this determination on the state of the record when the trial court ruled on the anti-SLAPP motion, and not on events occurring after the challenged order and after the notice of appeal was filed. Although our conclusions on the April 2001 probation are sufficient to require an affirmance, for purposes of judicial economy we also address Dr. O'Meara's claims based on the first probation (February 2000). On the record before us, Court conclude Dr. O'Meara failed to exhaust his judicial remedies with respect to this disciplinary action.
Comments on OMeara v. Palomar-Pomerado Health System