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
TENANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK BY ITS EFFORTS TO REMOVE SNOW AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO SERVE AS THE INTERPRETER FOR HER MOTHER’S DEPOSITION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; THE CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING A RELATIVE TO SERVE AS AN INTERPRETER ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE PARTY WANTS VENUE CHANGED, AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE ACTION WAS STARTED, THE PARTY MUST USE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CPLR 511 (A) AND (B), WHICH REQUIRES MAKING A DEMAND ON THE OTHER PARTY BEFORE BRINGING A MOTION; HERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT USED, THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE IN THE “WRONG COUNTY” AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO SEAL A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND CAN BE APPEALED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT A “NON-MILITARY AFFIDAVIT” DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT IS NOT IN THE MILITARY IS A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING A MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IT IS NOT A GROUND FOR VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNLESS THE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATES HE OR SHE WAS, IN FACT, IN THE MILITARY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Extremely Forgiving Nature of CPLR 3216 (Dismissal for Neglect to Prosecute) Explained

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;...