Benell v. City of Virginia

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: THOMAS GALLAGHER; FRANK T. GALLAGHER
• Citation: Benell v. City of Virginia, 258 Minn. 559, 104 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 1960)
• Decision Date: 05 August 1960
• Docket Number: No. 37842,37842
• Parties: O. E. BENELL, M.D., Appellant, v. CITY OF VIRGINIA, Respondent.

Page 633

104 N.W.2d 633

258 Minn. 559

O. E. BENELL, M.D., Appellant, v. CITY OF VIRGINIA, Respondent.

No. 37842.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 5, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where resolution relating to questions of administration and operation of municipal hospital is adopted by municipal hospital commission, and party deemed aggrieved thereby seeks declaratory judgment that resolution is invalid and unreasonable, function of court is limited to determination of whether commission's action in adopting resolution was arbitrary or unreasonable. Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of such a commission on matters relating solely to policy or proper practice for operation or administration of hospital.

2. Where hospital commission created by charter of defendant city was empowered to administer, maintain, and control municipal hospital and adopted resolution placing department of radiology under fulltime radiologist and requiring that use of equipment and technicians of such department by medical staff members be in consultation with and under supervision of hospital radiologist; and where evidence indicated that procedure covered by resolution was in accordance with practice adopted by most hospitals and advocated by American College of Radiologists as calculated to best serve interests of hospitals, held finding of trial court that commission's action in adopting resolution was not arbitrary or unreasonable but in furtherance of its obligations to operate and administer hospital efficiently and economically should be sustained.

3. Albert v. Gogebic County Public Hospital, 341 Mich. 344, 67 N.W.2d 244, and Findlay v. Board of Supervisors, 72 Ariz. 58, 230 P.2d 526, 24 A.L.R.2d 841, relied upon by plaintiff, distinguished.

Lewis, Hammer, Heaney, Weyl & Halverson, Duluth, for appellant.

S. L. Cohen, City Attorney, Virginia, Hyman Edelman, Special Asst. City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice.

Action by plaintiff, Dr. O. E. Benell, for a declaratory judgment that a resolution adopted June 3, 1957, by the hospital commission of the Virginia Municipal Hospital, which is owned by defendant, city of Virginia, is invalid. The resolution is as follows:

'Any member of the active medical staff may be called in consultation by any other member of the hospital staff. The consultant will have access to all the hospital records affecting the patient in question, including laboratory reports, reports on tissues examined by the hospital Pathologist and X-rays taken under the supervision of the hospital Radiologist. After adequate examination of the patient and/or his hospital records, the consultant will enter his opinion on the hospital chart as to diagnosis and/or recommendations for treatment of the patient.

'The above would apply to the case of Dr. O. E. Benell. While Dr. Benell is a member of the active medical staff he may be called in consultation by another member of the staff. He may enter into the hospital charts his interpretation of X-rays taken under the supervision of the hospital Radiologist or he may be consulted for his opinion as to X-ray therapy for a patient. His opinion should be entered in the hospital chart.

'In consultation with the hospital Radiologist, a decision may be made as to the Method of administration and dosage schedule for the X-ray therapy. At the request of the attending physician, the hospital Radiologist will then administer the X-ray therapy.

'Dr. Benell thus exercises a function of the consultant in Radiology by Interpreting X-rays and recommending further Diagnostic X-ray techniques or by making Recommendations in regard to X-ray therapy. It is to be understood that no compensation is to be expected from the hospital for this consultation service.' (Italics supplied.)

The trial court determined that since the resolution was for the promotion of higher standards of medical practice in the hospital; and for placing of responsibility for all radiological procedures with the radiologist heading the radiology department, it was reasonable and in all respects valid.

On appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to the trial court's order, plaintiff, a licensed physician and surgeon, and a qualified radiologist on the staff of the hospital, contends that the hospital, being a publicly supported institution, is required to make its equipment and the technical staff in its radiology department reasonably available to qualified radiologists on its active medical staff without the limitations and restrictions set forth in the resolution.

The Virginia Municipal Hospital is operated by the city of Virginia pursuant to the latter's home rule charter. It includes a well-equipped and modern department of radiology and a technical staff is maintained in connection therewith. It operates under a charter commission consisting of five lay freeholders and voters appointed by the mayor subject to the approval of the city council. The commission is empowered by the charter to make rules relating to its own procedures and the administration, maintenance, and control of the hospital.

Plaintiff has specialized in the practice of radiology since 1947. Since December 23, 1949, he has been a member of the Lenont-Peterson Clinic at Virginia. On January 9, 1950, he was hired as a radiologist for the Virginia Municipal Hospital to act on a part-time basis. Payments for his services were made to the Lenont-Peterson Clinic by the hospital. A resolution terminating this arrangement as of November 1, 1955, was adopted by the commission September 19, 1955. At that time it appointed Dr. Abraham Alpert as a full-time hospital radiologist, and on June 3, 1957, adopted the resolution here challenged. Prior thereto, it had offered plaintiff the opportunity of serving as radiologist for the hospital if he would disassociate himself from the Lenont-Peterson Clinic and work out a suitable arrangement with Dr. Alpert. Plaintiff declined to disassociate himself from the clinic and thereafter requested that the hospital define his rights with respect to the radiology department, its staff, and equipment. The June 3, 1957, resolution followed this request, the commission giving as one of its reasons therefor its desire that the hospital radiology department be independent of any clinics and that its radiologist be responsible solely to the hospital.

At the trial, testimony of experts was submitted with reference to the reasonableness of the resolution. Mr. Ray M. Amberg, Director of the University of Minnesota Hospitals, called by defendant, testified that in his opinion the resolution was reasonable since the commission was vested with responsibility for selecting a radiologist for all hospital patients and since any negligence on his part might make the hospital liable in damages. Dr. Abraham Alpert, called by plaintiff for cross-examination under the statute, testified that in his opinion it was necessary for the hospital radiologist to take charge of all radiological procedures and to exercise his independent judgment when it was needed so diagnosis and treatment of all hospital patients could be obtained as expeditiously as possible. Dr. Arthur M. Antonow, a member of the East Range Clinic and Chief of staff of the hospital, testified that in his opinion the resolution was reasonable because of the responsibility of the hospital for X-ray, diagnosis, and therapeutic treatment; because better and more uniform standards by the technicians could thereby be provided; and because better team work and greater efficiency would be promoted by closed staff arrangements for radiology.

Experts called by plaintiff included Dr. E. N. Peterson of the Lenont-Peterson Clinic and Dr. Henry G. Moehring, a radiologist with a Duluth clinic. Both expressed the opinion that the resolution was unreasonable; that it would hamstring visiting consultants in administering radiation therapy where daily judgment must be exercised. Dr. Peterson testified that it would deprive a consulting doctor of his right to examine his patients; that it would require diagnosis based upon another's findings; that it would deny the patient a free choice of physician and deny an attending physician the right to proper evidence required for diagnosis. Dr. Moehring testified that the radiologist should be present at almost all examinations, even where simple chest films are taken; that if the radiologist can see films shortly after exposure, he may find reason to expose additional films or to suggest study along lines not apparent upon physical examination. Plaintiff testified that the resolution barred his practice of radiology at defendant hospital in that it is not satisfactory for a radiologist to be required to look at films taken by another radiologist. He was corroborated by Dr. Peterson and Dr. Moehring, as well as by dr. Alpert.

1. It is our opinion that the challenged resolution constitutes an administrative act adopted by the hospital commission pursuant to Charter of City of Virginia, § 200--C, ¹ in furtherance of the administration, operation, maintenance, and control of the hospital, City of Duluth v. Cerveny, 218 Minn. 511, 16 N.W.2d 779, and that accordingly the function of this court is limited to a determination whether the commission's action in adopting the resolution was arbitrary or unreasonable. State ex rel. McGinnis v. Police Civil Service Comm., 253 Minn. 62, 91 N.W.2d 154; Nelson v. Reid and Wackman, 228 Minn. 137, 36 N.W.2d 544; State ex rel. Ging v. Board of Education, 213 Minn. 550, 7 N.W.2d 544. In determining this question, of course, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the commission on matters relative to policy or good practice, which are purely administrative rather than legal in nature. State v. Great N. Ry. Co., 130 Minn. 57, 60, 153 N.W. 247, 248; Chicago, M. St. P. & P.R. Co. v. Foley Bros., Inc., 191 Minn. 335, 254 N.W. 435.

2. Basically, it is defendan...