Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 AUGUST 2021

Key Takeaways From The Natarajan v. Dignity Health Decision

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Contributor
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt is a multidisciplinary, integrated national professional services firm known for quality and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

On August 12, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Natarajan v. Dignity Health, No. S259364. The case addresses the potential bias of hearing officers appointed to preside...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

On August 12, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Natarajan v. Dignity Health, No. S259364. The case addresses the potential bias of hearing officers appointed to preside over hospital administrative proceedings that are held when a medical staff committee recommends that a physician with privileges at the hospital be subject to disciplinary action. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the fact that a hospital might hire a hearing officer again for future work does not create a presumption that the hearing officer has a financial incentive to favor the hospital and does not, without more, require disqualification for bias. The Natarajan decision clarifies the statutory scheme governing selection of hearing officers for peer review hearings and provides important guidance for hospitals and their medical staffs in making such selections.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from