In a recent development, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Boermeester v. Carry emphasizing that peer review hearings are not the same as court trials. This decision emphasises on the need for flexibility and distinctiveness in proceedings related to peer reviews and internal disciplinary in corporations. Unlike court trials, these proceedings are by nature much more flexible, allowing for an appropriate balance between fairness and swift, efficient decision-making.
The case of Boermeester v. Carry dealt with fair procedure within a private university’s internal disciplinary proceedings. Despite this seeming distance from corporate law, it provides valuable insights for peer review bodies and legal professionals navigating similar scenarios within corporate disciplinary arenas, particularly those related to medical disciplinary hearings. The decision underscores the foundational principle that ‘fair procedure’, so critical to our legal landscape, must be interpreted pragmatically rather than dogmatically.
It is vital to remember that ‘fair procedure’ does not mean ‘identical procedure’. The same standards of evidence, the same rigorous cross-examination, and the same procedural protections that apply in a court of law may not be appropriate, or even necessary, in the context of a peer review hearing.
Whether in academia or in corporate disciplinary proceedings, fair procedure should be moulded according to the setting, purpose, and parties involved. Taking this ruling forward, it is key for corporate bodies and legal professionals to constantly adapt and ensure that their internal disciplinary procedures correspond to the specific demands of their environments.
For a more in-depth look at this ruling, the full summary of the case can be found in this article by Nossaman LLP.