You are here: / / HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO MEDICAL-PEER-REVIEW AND COMMON-INTEREST...
,

HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO MEDICAL-PEER-REVIEW AND COMMON-INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE: COMMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TERMINATION OF PLAINITFF-PHYSICIAN’S HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant hospital and administrators were entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s defamation complaint. Plaintiff was a physician with privileges at defendant hospital. Based upon complaints about plaintiff’s behavior, the hospital terminated plaintiff’s hospital privileges pursuant to a recommendation of the hospital’s credentials committee. The statements at issue were made before, during and after the administrative proceedings at the hospital. The Second Department determined the defendants were not entitled to absolute privilege for comments made during the meeting of the credentials committee because those proceedings were not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature. However, the defendants were entitled to qualified privilege for medical peer review proceedings pursuant to 42 USC 1111. With respect to comments made both prior to and during the meeting of the credentials committee, the Second Department found that a “qualified privilege of common interest” applied. The Second Department rejected Supreme Court’s finding that plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the defendants acted with malice (which would have removed the qualified privilege). With respect to comments made after the termination of plaintiff’s hospital privileges, the Second Department found, based upon plaintiff’s public comments, plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure and there was no showing defendants’ post-termination comments were made with actual malice.  Concerning the two types of qualified privilege which were found applicable, the court explained:

 

The defendants established, prima facie, that they were entitled to a qualified privilege under 42 USC § 11111(a), part of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, which creates a qualified privilege for information provided in medical peer review proceedings concerning the competence or professional conduct of a physician, “unless such information is false and the person providing it knew that such information was false” (42 USC § 11111[a][2]…)

* * * With respect to [the] causes of action … predicated upon allegedly defamatory statements made both during and prior to the Credentials Committee meeting, the defendants established, prima facie, that they were entitled to a qualified privilege of common interest … , under state statutory law (see Public Health Law §§ 2805-j[2]; 2805-m[3]; Education Law § 6527[3], [5]), and under [the hospital’s] bylaws … . Colantonio v Mercy Med. Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 00147, 2nd Dept 1-13-16

 

DEFAMATION (MEDICAL PEER REVIEW AND COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE APPLIED TO COMMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION OF TERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S HOSPITAL PRVILEGES)/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, MEDICAL PEER REVIEW AND COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE APPLIED TO COMMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION OF TERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S HOSPITAL PRVILEGES)/MEDICAL PEER REVIEW QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION)/COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION)

You might also like
THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN FATHER SAID HE WISHED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY BUT COULD NOT AFFORD ONE; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE TOLD FATHER HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPOINTED COUNSEL BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING; FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE PROPERLY GRANTED TO THE SCHOOL IN THIS BASEBALL-RELATED SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Assisting Resident Can Not Be Sued for Malpractice
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 3216 OR 22 NYCRR 202.7, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
Assumption of Risk Extends to Construction of Baseball Field
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INDICATED SHE DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER FALL IN HER DEPOSITION, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FLOOR WAS WET FROM TRACKED IN SNOW AND DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALIDATED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED TWO SIGNATURES BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATION, MADE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION AT A HEARING, THAT THE TWO SIGNATURES WERE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE ORAL CONTRACT CALLED FOR THE MATURATION OF A LOAN AFTER 15 YEARS,... RENTAL PERMIT REQUIRED BY TOWN CODE WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE LEASE;...