Armin

I. INTRODUCTION

We embark here upon an admittedly lengthy voyage—slow going because we must proceed carefully in largely uncharted waters. The appeal requires us to decide two questions of first impression regarding the interaction between (a) hospital peer review proceedings against doctors governed by sections 805 to 809.7 of the Business and Professions Code, and (b) the hospital whistle-blower statute, Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. The first question is one left open by our Supreme Court’s decision in Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals (2014) 58 Cal.4th 655 [ 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 165 , 318 P.3d 833 ] (Fahlen). Fahlen squarely held that a physician could prosecute a section 1278.5 action without first having to prevail in an administrative mandate proceeding attacking a peer review determination, but the court did not go so far as to excuse the physician from completing the internal peer review process before filing a section 1278.5 action. The case before us now presents that very question: Is completion of peer review a prerequisite of a section 1278.5 action? Based on the analysis in Fahlen and the text and legislative history of section 1278.5, we hold…