Alborzi is a doctor who was on a panel of infectious disease specialists that USC’ Verdugo Hills Hospital called on to assist with patients having serious infectious diseases. He complained about USC’s arrangements with a group of hospitalist doctors, claiming that they violated anti-kickback legislation by charging USC less than market value for their hospitalist services but then made it up by referring patients for other services to a nursing and home care company they owned. Alborzi claimed that in retaliation for that complaint USC abolished the on-call panel and stopped calling on Alborzi (as well as other former members of the panel). Though decisions about the staffing of an entire hospital department are normally quasi-legislative in nature and are reviewed by traditional mandamus more deferentially than quasi-judicial decisions, here the complaint alleged that the hospital had scrapped its on-call panel to retaliate against plaintiff. At the demurrer stage, that allegation had to be taken as true, undermining USC’s attempt to characterize the decision as quasi-legislative. Also, to bring a whistleblower retaliation claim under H&S Code 1278.5, Alborzi did not have to exhaust administrative or judicial remedies regardless of whether USC’s decision was quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. The rationale of Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals (2014) 58 Cal.4th 655 applies to both kinds of decision. Alborzi adequately alleged a retaliation claim under section 1278.5. He alleged that he had expressed “concerns regarding patient safety [and] the presence of illegally incentivized decisions about patient care” and asserted that improper referrals of patients impacted the quality of patient care. That satisfied the statute’s requirement of complaints about unsafe patient care. Eliminating the on call list was a discriminatory action within the statute’s meaning. Alborzi adequately alleged a 17200 unlawful business practice claim. His claim under the False Claims Act retaliation section (Gov. Code 12653 failed because he did not allege he was an employee, contractor or agent and because he didn’t allege that the purported kickbacks occurred in connection with any government claims, such as a Medicare reimbursement claim, but the trial court should have granted him leave to amend to cure these defects.