Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that art. 18, § 6 applies to negligent supervision claims although this cause of action was not recognized until 1972
• concluding that a negligent supervision cause of action is protected by the anti-abrogation clause even though the action was first recognized in 1972
• holding that the peer review privilege applies to credential committee files and is not limited to retrospective review of care provided by physicians already practicing in hospitals
• stating that for a negligent supervision claim, a plaintiff must establish the employer knew or should have known that the employee “was not competent to provide certain care,” and that the employer’s failure to supervise the employee caused injury
• the peer review process protected by the act includes “the discussions, exchanges, and opinions found in the committee minutes.”
• “Generally, a party may not challenge a discovery order directed to a nonparty witness, the right to object being reserved solely for the witness subpoenaed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).