Can SLAPP be used in medical malpractice cases?

Appellants argue that emergency room efficiency and physician interactions with hospital staff impact the quality of patient care and therefore are issues of widespread public interest. Looking at the specific nature of this dispute, it concerns a physician's personality and profitability. Although there may be a relationship between these concerns and the general topic of quality health care, the link is too attenuated to trigger anti-SLAPP protection. The fact that a "broad and amorphous public interest" can be connected to the nature of the challenged statements is not sufficient. (Weinberg v. Feisel, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132.) To convert these private internal grievances into an issue of widespread public interest merely because the complaints about respondent can be related to a broader health care issue would improperly provide for anti-SLAPP coverage in every employment-type case involving a physician or health care worker. This is not the purpose underlying the anti-SLAPP statute.