(a)In addition to the privilege afforded by Section 47, there shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any person on account of the communication of information in the possession of that person to any hospital, hospital medical staff, veterinary hospital staff, professional society, medical, dental, podiatric, psychology, marriage and family therapy,
professional clinical counselor, midwifery, or veterinary school, professional licensing board or division, committee or panel of a licensing board, the Senior Assistant Attorney General of the Health Quality Enforcement Section appointed under Section 12529 of the Government Code, peer review committee, quality assurance committees established in compliance with Sections 4070 and 5624 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or underwriting committee described in Section 43.7 when the communication is intended to aid in the evaluation of the qualifications, fitness, character, or insurability of a practitioner of the healing or veterinary arts.
(b)The immunities afforded by this section and by Section 43.7 shall not affect the availability of any absolute privilege that may be afforded by Section 47.
(c)Nothing in this section is intended in any way to affect the California
Supreme Court’s decision in Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, holding that subdivision (a) provides a qualified privilege.
Notes of Decisions
Hassan v. Mercy Am. River Hosp., 74 P.3d 726 (Cal. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Civil Code section 43.8 [1] confers a privilege on "any person" who makes a communication "to any hospital [or] hospital medical staff .”
Cent. Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 848 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“'Peer review discovery privilege' refers to the discovery and admissibility privilege concerning certain records an [ sic ] activities of a peer review process, as granted by California Evidence Code § 1157.”
Toranto v. Jaffurs, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 2× “They contend Plaintiff has not and cannot show they lacked a good faith intent to aid in Plaintiff's evaluation. Additionally, they contend the allegation that Plaintiff received a call from Dr.”
Hackethal v. Weissbein, 592 P.2d 1175 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 2× “[4] Civil Code section 43.8 reads: "In addition to the privilege afforded by Section 47, there shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any person on account of the communication of information in the possession of…”
Steed v. Dep't of Consum. Affairs, 204 Cal. App. 4th 112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
“) Civil Code section 43.8, subdivision (a) reads, “In addition to the privilege afforded by Section 47, there shall be no monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages shall arise against, any person on account of the communication of information in the…”
Johnson v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1564 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
“Civil Code section 43.8 1 provides civil immunity for a person who communicates information “intended to aid in the evaluation of the qualifications, fitness, character, or insurability of a practitioner of the healing or veterinary arts.”
Axline v. Saint John's Hosp. & Health Ctr., 63 Cal. App. 4th 907 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
“) Civil Code section 43.8 provides absolute immunity to persons who “communicate certain information to medical staff committees.”
Axline v. St. John's Hosp. & Health Cen., 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
“) Civil Code section 43.8 provides absolute immunity to persons who "communicate certain information to medical staff committees.”
Cent. Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health (Cal. Ct. App. 2018).
“‘Peer review liability privilege’ refers to the limited immunity to suit granted with respect to certain communications (when made without malice) related to evaluation of medical personnel, as granted by California Civil Code § 43.8. (See, Hassan v.”
Sujan v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr. CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
“” (Civ. Code, § 43.8, subd. (a).) But the immunity is qualified, and “proof that the communicator knew the information to be false when it was conveyed establishes malice sufficient to defeat [it].”
Cnty. of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 1 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2001).
“Although the district court concluded that some of the statements were privileged communications under Cal. Civ.Code § 43.8, we "may affirm a summary judgment on any ground supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.”
Hassan v. Mercy Am. River Hosp., 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
“II Civil Code Section 43.8 Does Not Establish an Absolute Privilege The dispositive issue concerns the meaning of the privilege provided by section 43.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.