California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Smith v. Adventist Health System/west, F057211, No. 08C0069 (Cal. App. 2010):
Rather than broadly applying the proceeding-reviewable-by-mandate privilege to all claims alleging a wrongful suspension of privileges after a peer review proceeding, we conclude that such claims should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis under the test that determines whether the gravamen of the action was communicative. (Rusheen v. Cohen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1058.) Under this test, the key inquiry is "whether the injury allegedly resulted from an act that was communicative in its essential nature." (Ibid.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.