privileges as not supported by substantial evidence. On December 30, 1991, the CMA filed a request for

publication of opinion with the California Court of Appeal (2nd Dist.). Also on December 30, 1991, the

CMA filed a letter with the California Supreme Court in support of the Dr. Mir’s opposition to the

hospital’s petition for review. The CMA argued that the appellate court’s decision promoted fair peer

review proceedings to the benefit of patients and physicians. The appellate court had ruled that a board

certified thoracic surgeon summarily suspended by the hospital must be reinstated because the

disciplinary action taken was not supported by substantial evidence. The California Supreme Court

denied the petition for review, but did not publish the decision. Following the resolution of the appeal,

Dr. Mir filed a motion in the trial court for an order awarding attorney fees under Business and

Court of Appeal (2nd Dist.), arguing in support of Dr. Mir’s appellate affirmation of the trial court’s

awards to him, as well as showing that Business and Professions Code §809.9 provides a necessary

deterrent to the abuse of the peer review process by either side. On September 15, 1994, the CMA filed a

letter with the California Court of Appeal (2nd Dist.), in support of rehearing/reconsideration. The letter

requested that the Court review its interpretation of Business & Professions Code §809.9, and rule that

attorney fees be awarded when a trial rules there was no substantial evidence supporting the disciplinary

action.

physicians may recover attorneys fees pursuant to Business & Professions Code §809.9 only if physician

proves that the hospital action in defending against the petition for writ of mandate was unreasonable or

without foundation beyond the lack of substantial evidence to support the discipline, may be found at Mir