Nashed v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center CA2/6

Filed 10/24/22 Nashed v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ASHRAF NASHED, 2d Civ. No. B313131 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2019- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00529474-CU-WM-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Ashraf Nashed, M.D. appeals a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandamus to challenge the decision of respondents Los Robles Regional Medical Center and Los Robles Hospital Medical Staff, Inc. (collectively the Hospital) to deny his request for category III cardiology privileges. We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the admission of unfavorable evidence at the administrative hearing did not deny Nashed a fair administrative proceeding; 2) an administrative hearing judge and an appeal board member were not biased

1

against Nashed; and 3) substantial evidence supports the judgment. We affirm. FACTS Nashed is an interventional cardiologist. He practiced medicine at the Hospital with “staff and surgical privileges.” The Hospital’s medical executive committee (MEC) makes “recommendations regarding the Medical Staff[’s]” performance. The Hospital’s medical staff granted Nashed’s application for reappointment to the medical staff and certain cardiology privileges. But they denied his request for full “[c]ategory III interventional cardiology privileges” because he “lacked the professional ability and clinical judgment qualifications for [those] privileges.” Nashed requested a hearing under the Hospital’s review procedures, which include a hearing before an administrative hearing judge, referred to as an “arbitrator,” and a review by an appeal board. The arbitrator conducted a hearing where medical experts testified in favor of and against Nashed. The arbitrator upheld the recommendation to deny full category III privileges. Nashed appealed to the board of trustees. His appeal was decided by a three-member appeal board appointed by the trustees. The appeal board affirmed the arbitrator’s decision. In 2019, the board of trustees issued the final decision affirming the arbitrator’s decision. Nashed filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) He claimed he was denied a fair administrative proceeding; inadmissible evidence was admitted; the arbitrator was biased; Doctor Paul David, a