Bartschi v. Chico Community Memorial Hospital
| Decision Date | 20 October 1982 |
| Citation | 187 Cal.Rptr. 61,137 Cal.App.3d 502 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Larry R. BARTSCHI, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHICO COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, a corporation, Feather River Hospital, a corporation, and N.T. Enloe Memorial Hospital, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 20326. |
Marsh, Marsh & Glusman and Harry M. Marsh, Chico, for defendant and respondent, Chico Community Memorial Hosp.
McDonough, Holland & Allen, Gary F. Loveridge and Betsy S. Kimball, Sacramento, for defendant and respondent, Feather River Hosp.
Barr, Minoletti & Newlan, Douglas H. Newlan, Redding, and D. Timothy Born, Redding, Mulkey, Aisthorpe, Kelly & Cook, Chico, for defendant and respondent, N.T. Enloe Memorial Hosp.
Dr. Larry R. Bartschi (plaintiff) sued defendants Chico Community Memorial Hospital (Chico), N.T. Enloe Memorial Hospital (Enloe), and Feather River Hospital (Feather River) alleging his wrongful removal from their medical staffs. He appeals various orders and a judgment which (1) denied him discovery against Chico and Enloe, (2) granted summary judgment to Feather River because of his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, (3) denied his motion to reconsider that judgment, and (4) denied him a preliminary injunction against Chico and Enloe. We affirm.
The following lengthy examination of the facts and proceedings is necessary to understand the posture of the case.
Plaintiff applied for joint medical staff privileges at Chico and Enloe in late 1976. He was granted privileges as a "provisional" member of both staffs in the fall of 1977.
In mid-1978 a joint hospital committee began an audit of plaintiff, apparently prompted by a problem involving one of his patients. A representative of the California Medical Association (CMA) later joined in the audit. As a result of its audit, the CMA issued a report on January 17, 1980, largely unfavorable, and recommended modification of plaintiff's privileges if deficiencies in his "surgical management" persisted over the next six months.
On February 21, 1980, the Chico Medical Staff Executive Committee recommended that plaintiff's staff privileges be terminated. A letter of the same date advised plaintiff of the recommendation, and of his right to a hearing and appellate review under the hospital's bylaws.
On February 27, plaintiff lunched with Dr. Jay Gibson, the chairman of the committee that had audited plaintiff, at Gibson's invitation. Plaintiff claims that Gibson urged him not to pursue his administrative remedies, but to resign; if plaintiff resigned, Gibson allegedly promised that Chico would be under no obligation to report plaintiff to the State Board of Medical Quality Assurance (BMQA), and would not make it difficult for him to practice elsewhere. Gibson testified that he told plaintiff he thought no report to the BMQA would be necessary if plaintiff resigned, but could not be sure. He also testified to having suggested resignation as a possible alternative, but said he made no agreement with plaintiff on behalf of Chico.
On March 6, plaintiff requested a hearing on the executive committee's recommendation, and one was scheduled for March 27. However, on March 18, plaintiff tendered his resignation from the Chico staff, saying he had accepted a position elsewhere. Chico accepted his resignation and canceled the hearing. Plaintiff apparently resigned from the Enloe staff at approximately the same time.
Chico later determined that it was indeed required to make a report to the BMQA (see Bus. & Prof.Code, § 805), and it did so on April 1. In response to an inquiry by Feather River, Chico's administrator also sent that hospital a negative recommendation of plaintiff.
By a letter dated May 1, 1980, plaintiff's attorney advised Chico and Enloe that plaintiff was rescinding his resignation and demanded reinstatement. The next day Chico responded that there were no grounds for rescission; it did, however, invite plaintiff to reapply if he desired. On May 14, plaintiff did reapply, to both Chico and Enloe, and then filed suit on June 13.
On August 1, Chico's credentials committee recommended to the executive committee that plaintiff's reapplication be rejected. On August 21, the executive committee adopted this recommendation. By letter of August 22, plaintiff was notified of the executive committee's recommendation and advised of his right to a hearing and appellate review. Plaintiff requested a hearing by letter dated August 27.
At the time the briefs were filed in this appeal, the administrative review of plaintiff's reapplications to Chico and Enloe was apparently not yet complete.
Plaintiff applied to Feather River for staff privileges in December 1976, and was granted "provisional active" status in July 1977. In October 1977, plaintiff's status was changed from "provisional active" to "provisional courtesy" at his request.
On March 6, 1980, plaintiff asked to advance again to "provisional active" status. However, because it had been learned that plaintiff was having difficulties at other hospitals in the area, Feather River's executive committee decided that no action should be taken on plaintiff's request for advancement until he provided sufficient information to resolve these questions. By letter of June 3, Feather River advised plaintiff of the committee's conclusion, and asked that he forward a copy of the CMA report on his performance at Chico and Enloe. Plaintiff was also asked not to exercise his courtesy staff privileges until the questions surrounding his application had been resolved.
On June 5, plaintiff's attorney wrote Feather River, demanding that plaintiff be given a hearing on his application for active status, and that he be allowed to continue to exercise his courtesy staff privileges pending consideration of his application. On June 6, Feather River responded that if the process were to be completed on his application, plaintiff would have to provide a copy of the CMA report.
As noted, plaintiff sued on June 13, 1980.
By letter of June 24, Feather River advised plaintiff that his courtesy staff privileges were suspended pending resolution of the questions as to his competence and of his right to a hearing on the suspension of those privileges. On June 25, plaintiff's attorney reiterated the demand that plaintiff be advanced to active status, and demanded a hearing regarding the suspension of courtesy staff privileges.
On July 9, plaintiff received a hearing before Feather River's judicial review committee regarding the suspension of his courtesy staff privileges; the suspension was affirmed on July 11. On July 14 plaintiff appealed this decision to the board of trustees. A hearing before the board was had on September 9, and the matter was taken under submission.
On September 22, 1980, the executive committee recommended to the board that plaintiff's application for advancement to active status be denied and that his courtesy staff privileges be terminated.
On October 1, 1980, the trial court granted Feather River's motion for summary judgment; at that time both of plaintiff's administrative appeals (the denial of his application for advancement, and the suspension of his courtesy staff privileges) were still under way.
On June 13, 1980, plaintiff filed a "Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief and Damages, and Petition for Writ That same day an order to show cause issued against the three named defendants. As part of that order, the defendants were ordered to show why plaintiff should not have access to a large volume of records concerning his status at the defendant hospitals.
of Mandate and/or in the Alternative Prohibition" against Chico, Enloe, and Feather River. Against [137 Cal.App.3d 507] Chico and Enloe plaintiff sought, inter alia, to rescind his resignation and be reinstated with full privileges, and against Feather River, inter alia, to be advanced to active status. Against all defendants, plaintiff alleged a potpourri of torts, violations of constitutional and civil rights, and failures to follow hospital bylaws.
On June 24, Chico moved for a protective order. On July 21, the court granted the motion, ordering that plaintiff be "precluded from further discovery in this proceeding until the conclusion of any and all administrative proceedings or until further order of this Court."
The three defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment. On October 1, the court denied the motions of Chico and Enloe, but granted Feather River's motion on the ground that plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies with that hospital.
On October 20, plaintiff moved the court to "vacate and/or set aside and/or reconsider" the grant of summary judgment to Feather River. The court denied this motion on April 22, 1981.
On May 18, 1981, the court denied plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction against Chico and Enloe.
Plaintiff appeals from (1) the protective order granted Chico on July 21, 1980; (2) the summary judgment granted Feather River on October 1, 1980; (3) the denial of his reconsideration motion on April 22, 1981; and (4) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Com'n v. Crawford
...as a prerequisite to a state court § 1983 action, has been adopted by a few courts since Patsy. See Bartschi v. Chico Community Mem. Hosp., 137 Cal.App.3d 502, 508, 187 Cal.Rptr. 61 (1982); State ex rel. Basham v. Med. Licensing Bd., 451 N.E.2d 691, 694 (Ind.App.1983); Snuggs v. Stanley Cou......
-
Galland v. City of Clovis
...Logan v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 116, 124, 185 Cal.Rptr. 878 with Bartschi v. Chico Community Memorial Hospital (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 502, 508, 187 Cal.Rptr. 61.) That dispute was resolved in Felder v. Casey (1988) 487 U.S. 131, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 12......
-
Earle v. Gunnell, 788
...issue and concluded that the holding in Patsy does not affect actions brought in State courts. E.g., Bartschi v. Chico Community Mem. Hosp., 137 Cal.App.3d 502, 508, 187 Cal.Rptr. 61 (1982); State ex. rel. Basham v. Med. Licensing Bd., 451 N.E.2d 691, 694 (Ind.App.1983). These courts proper......
-
Warford v. Medeiros
...(Southern Pacific Co. v. Oppenheimer,(1960) 54 Cal.2d 784, 786, 8 Cal.Rptr. 657, 356 P.2d 441; Bartschi v. Chico Community Memorial Hospital (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 502, 507, 187 Cal.Rptr. 61.) The rationale for this rule is that in the great majority of cases the delay due to interim review ......