Brandner v. Bateman

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment dismissing Dr. Michael Brandner’s claims against individual physicians involved in the termination of his hospital privileges. The court held that the physicians were immune under Alaska Statute 18.23.020 because they made reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts, reasonably believed their actions were warranted, and were not motivated by malice. The court did not reach the physicians’ federal immunity defenses or the merits of Brandner’s due process claims.

Holdings

1. To defeat summary judgment on the statutory immunity issue, Dr. Brandner was required only to show a genuine issue of material fact concerning compliance with AS 18.23.020; the superior court could not decide whether a reasonable fact finder would ultimately conclude that the doctors satisfied the statute.
2. The executive committee and hearing panel made reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts underlying their recommendations, and no genuine issue of material fact existed on that requirement.
3. The executive committee and hearing panel reasonably believed that termination of Dr. Brandner's privileges was warranted because they reasonably interpreted and applied Providence's reporting policy and imposed the sanction specified by that policy.
4. Dr. Brandner failed to present material evidence that the executive committee or hearing panel acted with malice toward him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the individual doctors were immune from Dr. Brandner's claims under AS 18.23.020.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning whether the doctors made reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts, reasonably believed their actions were warranted, or acted with malice.
3. Whether the superior court applied the correct summary judgment standard.

Disposition

affirmed