View Item 

Show simple item record

The Physician's Right to Due Process In Public and Private Hospitals: Is There a Difference?
dc.contributor.authorSouthwick, Arthur F.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T22:10:44Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T22:10:44Z
dc.date.issued1981-02en_US
dc.identifier.citationSouthwick, Arthur F. (1981). "The Physician's Right to Due Process In Public and Private Hospitals: Is There a Difference?." The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 9(1): 4-9. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75198>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1073-1105en_US
dc.identifier.issn1748-720Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75198
dc.format.extent827551 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights1981 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.en_US
dc.titleThe Physician's Right to Due Process In Public and Private Hospitals: Is There a Difference?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelLaw and Legal Studiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelGovernment, Politics and Lawen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumMr. Southwick is Professor of Business Law, Graduate School of Business Administration, and Professor of Hospital Administration. School of public Health at The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75198/1/j.1748-720X.1981.tb00630.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1748-720X.1981.tb00630.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethicsen_US
dc.identifier.citedreference1. Joiner v. Mitchell County Hosp. Auth., 125 Ga. App. 1, 2, 186 S.E. 2d 307, 308 ( 1971 ), aff'd 229 Ga. 140, 189 S.E. 2d 412 (1972); Purcell v. Zimbelman, 18 Ariz. App. 75, 500 P.2d 335, 341 (1972); Gonzales v. Nork, No. 228566 (Sacramento Co. Super. Ct., Cal. 1973). rev' d on other grounds, 131 Cal. Rptr. 717 (1976); Corleto v. Shore Mem. Hosp., 138 N.J. Super. 302, 309, 350 A.2d 534, 537 (1975); compare Schenck v. Gov' t. of Guam, 609 F.2d 387 (9th Cir. 1979) (District Court did not err in declining to apply emerging theory of independent or corporate hospital liability ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference2. E.g., Gilstrap v. Osteopathic Sanitorium, 224 Mo. App. 798, 810–12, 24 S.W.2d 249, 256 ( 1929 ) ( implied agency found as basis for employment of physician by sanitorium ); c f., Mulligan v. Wetchler, 39 App. Div.2d 102, 105, 332 N.Y.S.2d 68, 72 (1972) (hospital staff not bound to intervene in treatment of physician's private patient); Hoover v. Univ. of Chicago Hosp., 51 Ill. App. 2d 263, 366 N.E.2d 925 (1977) (hospital not liable for assault by physician employee where tort was outside scope of employment ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference3. When there is no employment relationship, there is no vicarious liability; a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor physician. Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 589 P.2d 201 ( 1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference4. See supra note 1. See also Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §331.422 ( 1970 ); Mich. Stat. Ann. §14.1179 (12) (1969); Ind. Code Ann. §16–10–1–6.5 (Burns) (1973); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §36–445 (1972 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShields, J.C., Guidelines for Reviewing Applications for Privileges, The Hospital Medical Staff 9(9): 11–17 ( Sept. 1980 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference6. For a concise statement of a public hospital's duty, see Moore v. Bd. of Trustees of Carson—Tahoe Hosp., 88 Nev. 207, 211–12, 495 P.2d 655, 608 ( 1972 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference7. Hayman v. Galveston, 273 U.S. 414, 416–17 ( 1927 ); Sosa v. Bd. of Managers of Val Verde Hosp., 437 F.2d 173, 176–77 (5th Cir. 1971 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference8. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 ( 1948 ); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715 (1961).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference9. E.g., Sosa v. Bd. of Managers of Val Verde Hosp., supra note 7 (notice of charges “reasonably related to operation of hospital” required for denial of admission to medical staff); Moore v. Bd. of Trustees of Carson— Tahoe Hosp., supra note 6 (hospital board may not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in denying restoration of medical staff privileges, even though conduct charged was not specifically prohibited by hospital by-laws).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference10. Sams v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp. Ass' n, 413 F.2d 826 (4th Cir. 1969 ) ( rule that staff physicians must locate their offices in the same county as hospital found unreasonable ); Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp., 323 F.2d 959 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 938 (1964) (allegations of racial discrimination in staff appointments); Silver v. Castle Mem. Hosp., 53 Haw. 475, 497 P.2d 564, cert. denied 409 U.S. 1048 (1972) (procedural due process found lacking where hospital failed to provide specific written charges prior to hearing for revocation of staff privileges ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference11. Barrett v. United Hospitals, 376 F. Supp. 791 (S.D.N.Y. 1974 ), Aff' d. mem., 506 F.2d 1395 (2d Cir. 1974 ). See also, Waters v. St. Francis Hosp., 618 F. 2d 1106, 1107 (5th Cir. 1980) (codification of common law right authorizing revocation of staff privileges does not convert revocation to state action); Hodge v. Paoli Mem. Hosp., 576 F.2d 563, 564 (3rd Cir. 1978) (mere receipt of Hill-Burton funds insufficient basis to support state action claim ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference12. Barrett v. United Hospitals, supra note 11, at 797.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference13. Id. at 800–5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference14. Id. at 799.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference15. 42 C.F.R. §405.1021 et seq. ( 1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference16. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, Accreditation Manual for Hospitals ( Chicago, 1980 ) at 93 – 94; see generally, Darling v. Charleston Community Hosp., 33 Ill. 2d 326, 211 N.E. 2d 253 (1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 946 (1966) (JCAH standards are admissible in court and failure to adhere to them can constitute evidence of negligence ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference17. See infra notes 20 and 21 and accompanying text.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference18. See supra note 15.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference19. See supra note 16.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference20. Griesman v. Newcomb Hosp., 40 N.J. 389; 192 A.2d 817 ( 1963 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference21. Woodard v. Porter Hosp., 125 Vt. 419, 217 A.2d 37 ( 1996 ); Hagan v. Osteopathic Gen. Hosp., 102 R.I. 717, 232 A.2d 596(1967); Khan v. Suburban Hosp., 45 Ohio St.2d. 39, 340 N.E. 2d 398 (1976); Bricker v. Sceva Speare Mem. Hosp.>, 111 N.H. 276, 281 A. 2d 589 (1971); Hawkins v. Kinsie, 540 P.2d 345 (Colo. App. 1975); Mc Elhinney v. William Booth Mem. Hosp., 544 S.W. 2d 216 (Ky. 1977); Ascherman v. St. Francis Mem. Hosp., 45 Cal. App.3d 507, 119 Cal. Rptr. 507 (1975); Storrs v. Lutheran Hospitals of America, 609 P.2d 24 (Alaska 1980 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference22. Guerrero v. Copper Queen Hosp., 22 Ariz. App. 611, 529 P.2d 1205 ( 1974 ). aff d mem. 537 P.2d 1329(1975) (private hospital); Williams v. Hosp. Auth. of Hall County, 119 Ga. App. 626, 168 S.E.2d 336 (1969) (public hospital ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference23. 42 U.S.C. §291et seq. and §300 et seq., 44 Fed. Reg. 29372 ( 1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference24. Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. A. §2000(c) ( 1966 ); 42 U.S.C.A. §1395 et seq. (1973); see also e.g., Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp., supra note 10 (participation in Hill-Burton program by private hospital sufficient basis for “state action” in denial of medical staff appointments and patient admissions on the basis of race); Foster v. Mobile County Hosp. Bd., 398 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1968) (state legislative creation and receipt of state and federal funds sufficient basis for finding “state action” in case involving alleged denial of staff privileges on basis of race ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference25. Parker v. Port Huron Hosp., 361 Mich. 1, 11–25, 105 N.W.2d 1, 6–13 ( 1960 ) ( Charitable immunity exception to general rule of tort liability, the bases for which are no longer compelling ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference26. Parker v. Highland park Hosp., 404 Mich. 183, 273 N. W. 2d 413 ( 1978 ) ( Operation of hospital is not “state action;” fact that public hospital operates for the “common good of all” does not distinguish it from private hospital since modern hospital, public or private, operated essentially as a business ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference27. Khan v. Suburban Hosp., supra note 21 ( required applicants for appointment to document their training, experience, and specialty board certification or eligibility as a prerequisite for the granting of major surgical privileges); Rao v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 80 Wash. 2d 695, 497 P.2d 591 (1972) (required references ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference28. Green v. City of St. Petersburg, 154 Fla. 3, 17 So. 2d 517 ( 1944 ); Khan v. Suburban Hosp., supra note 21; Selden v. City of Sterling, 316 Ill. App. 455, 45 N.E.2d 329 (1942) (mandated supervision for surgical privileges where surgeon's competence needed documentation or where a limited practitioner was granted privileges ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference29. Fahey v. Holy Family Hosp., 32 Ill. App. 3d 537, 336 N.E.2d 309 ( 1975 ) (required non-departmental physician to consult with qualified department member before performing any major surgery); Mem. Hosp. v. Pratt, 72 Wyo. 120, 262 P.2d 682 (1953) and Peterson v. Tucson Mem. Hosp., 559 P.2d 186 (Ariz. App. 1976) (required timely completion of medical records); Yeargin v. Hamilton Mem. Hosp., 229 Cal. 870, 195 S.E.2d 8 (1972) (required service in hospital's emergency room ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference30. Yeargin v. Hamilton Mem. Hosp., supra note 29, Klinge v. Lutheran Hosp., 383 F.Supp. 287 (D.Mo. 1974), modified 523 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1975) (required adherence to reasonable medical staff by-laws, rules and regulations); Citta v. Delaware Valley Hosp., 313 F.Supp. 301 (E.D. Pa. 1970); Duby v. Baron, 369 Mass. 614, 314 N.E.2d 870 (1976) (sustained rule providing for summary suspension of staff member in circumstances indicating an immediate threat to safety of patients); Koelling v. Skiff Mem. Hosp., 259 Iowa 1185, 146 N.W. 2d 284 (1966); Laje v. Thomason Gen. Hosp., 564 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1977) (documented clinical incompetence considered grounds for suspension or discipline ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference31. Pollack v. Methodist Hosp., 392 F.Supp. 393 ( E.D. La. 1975 ); Holmes v. Hoemaka Hosp., 573 P.2d 477 (Ariz. 1977); Renforth v. Fayette Mem. Hosp., 383 N.E.2d 368(Ind. App. 1978 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference32. Davis v. Morristown Mem. Hosp., 106 N.J. Super. 33, 254 A.2d 125 ( 1969 ) (periodic re-evaluation required ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference33. Guerrero v. Burlington County Mem. Hosp., 70 N.J. 344, 360 A. 2d 334 ( 1976 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference34. Waisky v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 145 N. J. Super. 393, 367 A. 2d 1204 ( 1976 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference35. E.g., Blank v. Palo Alto-Stanford Hosp. Ctr., 234 Cal. App.2d 377, 44 Cal. Rptr. 572 ( 1965 ); Rush v. City of st. Petersburg, 205 So.2d 11 (Fla. App. 1968 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference36. Adler v. Montefiore Hosp., 452 Pa. 60, 311 A.2d 634 ( 1973 ) (cardiac catheterization ); Dattilo v. Tucson Gen. Hosp., 533 P.2d 700, 23 Ariz. App. 396 (1975) (nuclear medicine);Lewin v. St. Joseph Hosp., 82 Cal. App. 3d 368, 146 Cal. Rptr. 892 (1978) (renal hemodialysis ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference37. Griesman v. Newcomb Hosp., supra note 20; Foster v. Mobile County Hosp. Bd., 398 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1968 ); Ware v. Benedikt, 225 Ark. 185, 280 S.W.2d 234 (1955); Hamilton County Hosp. v. Andrews, 227 Ind. 217, 84 N.E.2d 469 (1949 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference38. Milford v. People's Community Hosp. Auth., 380 Mich. 49, 155 N.W.2d 835 ( 1968 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference39. Sams v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp. Ass'n, supra note 10 ( county lines per se do not relate to hospital's service area or to doctor's availability and ability to serve hospitalized patients adequately ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference40. Ascherman v. St. Francis Mem. Hosp., 45 Cal. App.3d 507, 119 Cal. Rptr. 507 ( 1975 ); Foster v. Mobile County Hosp. Bd., supra note 37.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference41. Armstrong v. Fayette County Gen. Hosp., 553 S.W.2d 77 ( Tenn. App. 1977 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference42. Shaw v. Hosp. Auth. of Cobb County, 507 F.2d 625 ( 5th Cir. 1975 ) ( podiatrist entitled to hearing ); Davidson v. Youngstown Hosp. Ass' n. 19 Ohio App.2d 246, 250 N.E.2d 892 (1969) (private hospital must act reasonably in passing on applications for staff membership); Touchton v. River Dist. Community Hosp., 76 Mich. App. 251, 256 N.W.2d 455 (1977) (cannot summarily dismiss application of podiatrist). Compare Aasum v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 395 F.Supp. 363 (D. Ore. 1975). But see Boos v. Donnell, 421 P.2d 644 (Okla. 1966) (chiropractors can be excluded from hospital staffs). Some state statutes prohibit hospitals from arbitrarily discriminating against persons practicing in certain allied health profession. E.g., Cal. Health a Safety Code§1316 (1974) and §1316.5 (1978); Nev. Rev. Stat. §450.430 and §450.005 (1975). Of course, requiring a due process hearing does not require the hospital to grant the podiatrist privileges. Shaw v. Hosp. Auth. of Cobb County, supra.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference43. N. Y. Pub. Health Law §2801-b (McKinney) ( 1973 ) (podiatrists and others may not be denied staff privileges without stating reasons). In this connection see Fritz v. Huntington Hosp., 39 N.Y.2d 339, 348 N.E.2d 547 (1976); Fried v. Straussman, 393 N. Y.S. 2d 334, 361 N.E.2d 984 (1977 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference44. See Reynolds v. St. John's Riverside Hosp., 382 N.Y.S.2d 618 ( Sup. Ct. 1976 ) ( Physician's assistants must be considered by a hospital for privileges ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference45. Theissen v. Watonga Mun.x Hosp. Bd., 550 P.2d 938 ( Okla. 1976 ); Peterson v. Tucson Gen. Hosp., 114 Ariz. 66, 559 P.2d 186 (Ariz. App. 1976); contra, Wyatt v. Tahoe Forest Hosp. Dist., 345 P.2d 93 (Cal. App. 1959 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference46. Sosa v. Bd. of Man. of Val Verde Hosp., supra note 7 ( Physician abandoned obstetrical patients in active labor when they could not pay his fee; possessed an unstable physical demeanor and visible nervousness likely to jeopardize surgical patients; subject to fits of anger and rage; frequently moved the locus of his practice; had pled guilty to two felony charges in the past; had suffered suspension of medical license in Michigan and Texas (since restored in Texas); and failed to supply satisfactory current references ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference47. Anderson v. Caro Community Hosp., 10 Mich. App. 348, 159 N.W.2d 347 ( 1968 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference48. Huffaker v. Bailey, 540 P.2d 1398 ( Ore. 1975 ) ( by-law provision not unduly vague and reasonably related to quality of patient care ); Quoted in Ladenheim v. Union County Hosp., 76 Ill. App.3d 90, 394 N.E.2d 770 (1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference49. See, e.g., Miller v. Eisenhower Med. Center, 166 Cal. Rptr. 826, 614 P.2d 258 ( 1980 ); see also Staube v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Bd., 287 Ore. 375, 600 P.2d 381 (1979); Robbins v. Ong, 452 F. Supp. 116 (S.D. Ga. 1978 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference50. Rosner v. Eden Township Hosp. Dist., 58 Cal.2d 592, 375 P.2d 431, 25 Cal. Rptr. 551 ( 1962 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference51. Joint Commission on Accreditation, Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, supra note 16, at 95, 103–05.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference52. Silver v. Castle Mem. Hosp., supra note 10, 53 Haw. at 484–85; 497 P.2d at 571 – 72.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference53. Garrow v. Elizabeth Gen. Hosp., 155 N.J. Super. 78, 92, 382 A.2d 393, 400 ( 1977 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference54. Klinge v. Lutheran Charities of St. Louis, 523 F.2d, 56, 63 ( 8th Cir. 1975 ); Horronville Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Hortonville Educ. Ass' n. 426 U.S. 482, 493 ( 1976 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference55. Woodbury v. McKinnon, 447 F.2d 839, 844 ( 5th Cir. 1979 ); Ascherman v. San Francisco Med. Soc., 39 Cal. App.3d 623, 648, 114 Cal. Rptr. 681, 697 (1974).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference56. Silver v. Castle Mem. Hosp., supra note 10, 497 P.2d at 571; Ascherman v. San Francisco Med. Soc., supra note 55, 114 Cal. Rptr. at 697.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference57. Anton v. San Antonio Community Hosp., 140 Cal. Rptr. 442, 458, 567 P.2d 1162, 1178 ( 1977 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference58. Garrow v. Elizabeth Gen. Hosp. & Disp., 79 N.J. 549, 566–67, 401 A.2d 533, 541 – 42 ( 1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference59. Brickman v. Bd. of Dir. of W. Jefferson Gen. Hosp., 372 So.2d 701, 705 ( La. App. 1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference60. Joint Commission on Accreditation, Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, supra note 16, at 104.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnson, R.L., How Much Process Is Due ? Trustee 32 ( 10 ): 12 ( October 1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference62. E.g., Garrow v. Elizabeth Gen. Hosp., & Disp., supra note 58, 401 A.2d at 538; Brickman v. Bd. of Dir. of W Jefferson Gen. Hosp., supra note 59; Shulman v. Wash. Hosp. Center, 348 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1965 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference63. Margolin v. Morton F. Plant Hosp. Ass' n, 348 So.2d 57 ( Fla. App. 1977 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference64. Burkette v. Lutheran Gen. Hosp., 595 F.2d 255 ( 5th Cir. 1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference65. Kushner v. Southern Adventist Health and Hosp. Syst., 260 S.E.2d 381 ( Ga. App. 1979 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference66. Sosa V. Bd. of Man. of Val Verde HOSP., supra note 7, quoted in Lqje v. Thomason Gen. Hosp., supra note 30, at 1163.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1748-720X.1981.tb00630.x.pdf
Size:
808.1KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.