Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:23:42.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decisions about Hospital Staff Privileges: A Case for Judicial Deference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Edward E. Hollowell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The refusal of a hospital to grant medical staff membership and clinical privileges is, generally, subject to judicial review. Because a hospital can be held liable for negligence in the selection and retention of medical staff members, and because a hospital is better situated than a court to make a decision concerning staffing needs, courts should, and generally do, afford great deference to the appointment decisions of hospital governing boards and medical staffs. An analysis of selected cases involving judicial review of hospitals selection and retention of medical staff members will be instructive in reviewing judicial deference to hospital governing boards.

When a physician who has been denied medical staff membership and clinical privileges by a hospital seeks judicial review, the court generally first determines whether the hospital is private or public. This distinction frequently determines the outcome. The activity of a public hospital, as a governmental entity, is deemed state action. Under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, neither a state nor the federal government can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Type
Hospital Law Review
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , June 1983 , pp. 118 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See, e.g., Darling v. Charleston Community Hosp., 211 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 946 (1966). Prior to Darling, corporate liability did not present a significant threat to hospitals. The Darling line of cases has extended corporate liability of hospitals for negligence in selection and retention of medical staff members.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. amend. V, amend. XIV.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Meredith v. Allen County War Memorial Hosp. Comm'n, 397 F.2d 33, 35 (6th Cir. 1968); State ex rel. Sams v. Ohio Valley General Hosp. Ass'n (Sams I), 140 S.E.2d 457, 463 (W. Va. 1965), rev'd on other grounds, 413 F.2d 826 (4th Cir. 1969).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Shulman v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 222 F. Supp. 59, 63 (D.D.C. 1963), remanded with instructions, 348 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1965), aff'd on rehearing, 319 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1970).Google Scholar
Sams I, supra note 3, at 463; Khoury v. Community Memorial Hosp., Inc., 123 S.E.2d 533, 539 (W. Va. 1962).Google Scholar
Rao v. Auburn Gen. Hosp., 517 P.2d 240, 242 (Wash. App. 1973).Google Scholar
Sams v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp. Ass'n (Sams II), 413 F.2d 826 (4th Cir. 1969).Google Scholar
Modaber v. Culpeper Memorial Hosp., Inc., 674 F.2d 1023 (4th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
Bello v. South Shore Hosp., 429 N.E.2d 1011, 1014 (Mass. 1981).Google Scholar
Peterson v. Tucson Gen. Hosp., Inc., 559 P.2d 185 (Ariz. App. 1977); Shulman v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., supra note 4, at 63.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ascherman v. San Francisco Medical Soc'y, 114 Cal. Rptr. 681, 696 (Cal. App. 1974).Google Scholar
Lewin v. St. Joseph Hosp. of Orange, 146 Cal. Rptr. 892, 906 (Cal. App. 1978).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Davis v. Morristown Memorial Hosp., 254 A.2d 125, 130 (N.J. 1969), quoting Greisman v. Newcomb Hosp., 192 A.2d 817, 825 (N.J. 1963).Google Scholar
Garrow v. Elizabeth Gen. Hosp., 401 A.2d 533, 541 (N.J. 1979).Google Scholar
Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738 (1976).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Crane v. Intermountain Health Care, 637 F.2d 715 (10th Cir. 1981); Robinson v. Magovern, 521 F. Supp. 842 (W.D. Pa. 1981); Zamiri v. William Beaumont Hosp., 430 F. Supp. 875 (E.D. Mich. 1977). See also Kissam, P.C. et al. , Antitrust and Hospital Privileges: Testing the Conventional Wisdom, California Law Review 70: 595, 600 n.18 (1982).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Schlein v. Milford Hosp., 423 F. Supp. 541, 543 n.1 (D. Conn. 1976), aff'd, 561 F.2d 427 (2nd Cir. 1977). Contra Unterthiner v. Desert Hosp. Dist., 188 Cal. Rptr. 590, 597–98 (Cal. Sup. 1983).Google Scholar
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).Google Scholar
Hayman v. City of Galveston, 273 U.S. 414, 416–17 (1927); Sosa v. Board of Managers of Val Verde Memorial Hosp., 437 F.2d 173, 175 (5th Cir. 1971) [hereinafter referred to as Sosa]; Woodbury v. McKinnon, 447 F.2d 839, 842 (5th Cir. 1971).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Stretten v. Wadsworth Veterans Hosp., 537 F.2d 361, 365–66 (9th Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
Board of Regents v. Roth, supra note 18, at 572, citing Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1922).Google Scholar
Board of Regents v. Roth, supra note 18, at 573 (1972).Google Scholar
Cray, , Due Process Considerations in Hospital Staff Privilege Cases, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 7: 217, 235 (1979). See Schlein v. Milford Hosp., supra note 17, at 543 n.1.Google Scholar
See Cray, , supra note 23.Google Scholar
424 U.S. 693 (1976).Google Scholar
Id. at 711.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Stretten v. Wadsworth Veterans Hosp., supra note 20, at 365.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Peterson v. Tucson Gen. Hosp., Inc., 559 P.2d 186 (Ariz. App. 1977); Woodbury v. McKinnon, 447 F.2d 839 (5th Cir. 1971).Google Scholar
Sosa, supra note 19, at 177.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Mauer v. Highland Park Hosp. Foundation, 232 N.E.2d 776, 779 (Ill. App. 1967).Google Scholar
Branch v. Hempstead County Memorial Hosp., 539 F. Supp. 908, 918–19 (W.D. Ark. 1982).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Woodbury v. McKinnon, supra note 27; Truly v. Madison Gen. Hosp., 673 F.2d 763 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 103 S. Ct. 214 (1982); Ezekial v. Winkley, 142 Cal. Rptr. 418, 425–26 (Cal. 1977); Branch v. Hempstead County Memorial Hosp., supra note 32, at 916.Google Scholar
Garrow, , supra note 14.Google Scholar
Sosa, , supra note 19, at 177; Schlein v. Milford Hosp., supra note 17, at 544.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Lewin v. St. Joseph Hosp. of Orange, supra note 12, at 902–03.Google Scholar
Pick v. Santa Ana-Tustin Community Hosp., 182 Cal. Rptr. 85, 91 n.6 (Cal. App. 1982); Lewin v. St. Joseph Hosp. of Orange, supra note 12, at 900–03.Google Scholar
Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 181 Cal. Rptr. 732, 739 n.6 (Cal. 1982), citing Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §15.1 (2nd ed. 1980).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Laje v. R.E. Thomason Gen. Hosp., 564 F.2d 1159, 1162 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 905 (1978).Google Scholar