UPDATE: After two rounds of amendments in 2024 and legal challenges filed with the Colorado Supreme Court, proponents withdrew the ballot measure. For the moment, Colorado’s peer review protections remain in place....more
Din v. Sutter Valley Hospital (June 10, 2025, C099101, unpublished) puts the spotlight on a dividing line in California law: when can a hospital be liable for actions taken by its medical staff? The case sharpens the contrast...more
A recent unpublished California Court of Appeal decision—Najibi v. Providence Valley Service Area Community Ministry Board—illustrates real-world tensions that arise when hospital boards and medical staffs approach the same...more
The confidentiality of medical staff peer review has long been a cornerstone of hospital operations, fostering an environment where physicians can candidly evaluate medical care without the looming specter of malpractice...more
COVID-19 accelerated the trend of physician employment with hospitals, with recent data showing that nearly 70 percent of physicians are employed by hospitals or hospital-affiliated foundations or groups. While physician...more
Parties in peer review hearings can present a wide range of relevant evidence, regardless of its admissibility in a court of law. But California has passed a new “apology law” that modifies that standard, erecting a...more
Given California’s shortage of primary care providers, nurse practitioners (“NPs”) are increasingly being asked to fill gaps in provider coverage. With that background, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 890 (“AB 890”)...more
8/15/2022
/ APRNs ,
California ,
Health Care Providers ,
Healthcare ,
Healthcare Reform ,
New Regulations ,
Nurse Practitioners ,
Nurses ,
Patient Access ,
Physicians ,
Policies and Procedures
While hospital medical staffs have traditionally handled most of California’s peer review activity, recent trends are forcing more and more medical groups to wrestle with reporting and fair hearing obligations when...more