Sherr v. HealthEast Care System, No. 19-3272 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against HealthEast and others, alleging multiple causes of action related to peer review determinations stemming from his practice of neurosurgery. After the district court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, three claims remained against appellees: defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic relationship, and tortious interference with contract. Appellees moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims and the district court granted their motion.
As to the defamation claims, the Eighth Circuit concluded that only three statements are before the court on appeal because plaintiff did not amend his complaint to incorporate the additional allegedly defamatory statements identified during discovery and, given the requirement that defamation claims be pleaded with specificity, only the statements included in the amended complaint can form the basis of plaintiff's claim. As to the first remaining statement, the court concluded that it was waived. In regard to the two remaining statements, the court concluded that Minnesota peer review immunity applies.
As to the tortious interference claims, the court concluded that to the extent these alleged interferences occurred solely through the peer review process itself, appellees are entitled to peer review immunity. In the event peer review immunity does not fully shield appellees, these claims failed on the merits. Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that appellees were entitled to summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims, and the court affirmed its judgment.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Diversity. Surgeon brought defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and tortious interference claims against health care system and physicians involved in peer review determinations. Surgeon appeals district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding federal and state peer review immunity applied for actions in peer review and statements made outside of peer review were not actionable defamation. Alleged defamatory statements not included in the amended complaint are not subject to defamation action. On appeal, surgeon waives district court's rejection of one statement. As to two other statements, Minnesota peer review immunity applies because the evidence shows the peer reviewers abided by their own established procedures and malice can only be inferred if the procedures were not followed. On tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim, surgeon relies on inadmissible hearsay and decision to suspend is was not itself tortious. The tortious interference with contract claim fails as there was no contract with HealthEast and no breach of contract. Judge Shepherd concurs in part and dissents in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.