Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Anti-SLAPP Statutes and Peer Review

By David M. Axelrad and Jeremy B. Rosen

Hospitals trying to assemble a peer review committee to review another practitioner's record and perhaps impose sanctions for substandard performance have their jobs cut out for them because physicians are often reluctant to pass judgment on a colleague. In addition to this natural reticence, those who sit on or testify at a peer review proceeding have another reason to want to avoid it: the threat of lawsuits brought by the medical practitioner facing discipline. The scope of the problem is obvious: without willing and honest participants, the peer-review system that helps keep patients safe is compromised.

In recent years, a small number of people sued by disgruntled medical practitioners for statements made before hospital peer review and state licensing boards have attempted to scuttle those suits by using state-law anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes. SLAPP suits are, by definition, meritless suits brought not to win, but to use the litigation to deter, intimidate or punish citizens who either will or have reported violations of law, written to government officials or testified before governmental bodies. Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (1998). Anti-SLAPP legislation has been passed in several states, including California, Delaware, Georgia, New York, Minnesota, Ten-nessee and others. Can this legislation help participants in peer review and other medical competence proceedings when the person who was the subject of the proceeding cries 'Defamation!' or 'Interference with contractual relations?' The law is developing, and some recent decisions show that the answer to that question is still open to interpretation.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases Image

The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.