Dade County v. Trombly

• Decision Date: 15 April 1958
• Docket Number: No. 58-19,58-19
• Citation: 102 So.2d 394
• Parties: DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Faris N. Cowart, Charles F. Hall, Edwin L. Mason, John B. McLeod and Ralph A. Fossey, as the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, Appellants, v. Frank W. TROMBLY, M.D., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 394

102 So.2d 394

DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Faris N. Cowart, Charles F. Hall, Edwin L. Mason, John B. McLeod and Ralph A. Fossey, as the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, Appellants, v.Frank W. TROMBLY, M.D., Appellee.

No. 58-19.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 15, 1958.

Rehearing Denied May 23, 1958.

Darrey A. Davis, County Atty., and Thomas C. Britton, Asst. County Atty., Miami, for appellants.

Fuller Warren, Miami Beach, and Harry Durant, Miami, for appellee.

HORTON, Judge.

The appellee, a licensed physician, practicing in Dade County, Florida, filed a complaint in the court below against Dade County and the members of the Board of County Commissioners of said county, seeking a declaratory decree and injunction to judicially ascertain and declare that he was qualified and entitled to major surgical privileges at Jackson Memorial Hospital, owned and operated by the appellants.The appellee contended that his training and experience qualified and entitled him to major surgical privileges at Jackson Memorial Hospital, which privileges had been denied him upon due application made in the years 1952 and 1955 and that such denials were arbitrary, capricious, unlawful and discriminatory.The appellants' answer generally denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted that the appellee's applications for major surgical privileges had been rejected because he failed to meet the qualifications and standards set up by the medical board of Jackson Memorial Hospital and that such denials of privilege were not for the purpose of discrimination but to maintain a high quality of medical and surgical skill at this hospital.

The cause was referred to a special master in Chancery upon the joint motion of the parties to the cause.The special master heard the testimony and witnesses of the respective parties and rendered his report to the court, finding that the appellee had failed to prove that he was qualified to do major surgery and that the denials of such privilege by the appellants were not arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory.The special master recommended dismissal of the appellee's complaint.Objections to the master's report were filed on behalf of the appellee and the court sustained the objections and entered a final decree concluding the issues adverse to the findings and conclusions of the special master and requiring the appellant to permit the appellee to practice major surgery in Jackson Memorial Hospital.It is from this decree that appeal was perfected.

The appellant urges two grounds for the reversal of the final decree, i. e., (1) whether a hospital supported by public funds may require of a physician, as a condition to the use of its facilities for major surgery, standards higher than those required by the state for a medical license, and (2) whether the trial judge erred in disregarding the findings of the special master appointed by the consent of the parties when such findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.We conclude both questions should be answered in the affirmative and the decree reversed.

Jackson Memorial Hospital is owned and operated by Dade County and the Board of County Commissioners through a medical board responsible to the County Commissioners.This hospital is supported by public funds and paying patients.The by-laws of the medical staff of the hospital (approved by the Board of County Commissioner) set forth nine requirements for the appointment of a physician to the medical staff.The appellants contend that appellee's qualifications were lacking in the following requirements:

'4.He must be a graduate of an approved medical school.

'5.He must have had an internship of at least one year in a hospital approved by the Medical Board.

'8.He must be competent in the line of work he proposes to do.'

In considering the first question, we note that the appellee has conceded in his brief that a public hospital may require higher standards for major surgery than is required for a medical license but contends that such rule is not applicable to him.He instead urges that since the hospital is supported by public funds it could not arbitrarily exclude a licensed physician from the use of such hospital facilities in all surgery for the doctor's own private practice.In Green v. City of St. Petersburg, 154 Fla. 339, 17 So.2d 517, 518, Justice Terrell said:

'The law is settled in this country that a municipality may regulate and control the operation of a hospital provided by it and that in the exercise of such power, it may exclude those not shown to have met its requirements.Richardson v. City of Miami, 144 Fla. 294, 198 So. 51.There can certainly be no question about the power of a municipality to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations defining qualification to practice the medical profession in a hospital provided by it.Hayman v. City of Galveston, 273 U.S. 414, 47 S.Ct. 363, ...