Edson v. Griffin Hospital

• Citation: 21 Conn.Supp. 55,144 A.2d 341
• Decision Date: 27 March 1958
• Docket Number: No. 85348,85348
• Court: Superior Court of Connecticut
• Parties: Ralph H. EDSON v. The GRIFFIN HOSPITAL et al.

Page 341

144 A.2d 341

21 Conn.Supp. 55

Ralph H. EDSON v. The GRIFFIN HOSPITAL et al.

No. 85348.

Superior Court of Connecticut, New Haven County.

March 27, 1958.

Leon McCarthy, Ansonia, and John J. Sullivan, New Haven, for plaintiff.

Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, for defendants.

DEVLIN, Judge.

The plaintiff, a resident of the town of Shelton, is a duly licensed physician and surgeon who has been practicing in the Naugatuck valley towns since 1938. In 1943 he became a member of the staff of the defendant hospital and treated patients as a physician and performed certain surgery with the assistance of other surgeons in the hospital until 1954. At that time, as the result of the adoption of new bylaws rules and regulations, he was denied the right to use the facilities of the hospital in performing certain major surgical operations. These are described as cholecystectomies, abdominal hysterectomies, pelvic repairs, Caesarean sections and surgical procedures on female tubes and ovaries.

In this action he seeks to restrain the defendant hospital from prohibiting him the use of its facilities in performing these operations, claiming the rules and regulations adopted are arbitrary and the action of the board in curtailing his activities without a hearing illegal and in violation of his constitutional rights.

The basis of his first claim is that the defendant is a public corporation and public hospital maintained for the medical and surgical treatment of all persons who apply and that he has a right to practice therein so long as he stays within the law and conforms to all reasonable rules and regulations. In effect he contends the hospital is a public institution receiving considerable governmental and public financial assistance, some immunity from taxation, and that he and his patients are entitled to the facilities of the hospital as a matter of right.

The basic question is whether the defendant is a private corporation operating a nonprofit private hospital or is a public corporation operating a public hospital. The defendant was originally incorporated as the Derby Hospital by virtue of a special act of the General Assembly approved June 14, 1901. 13 Spec.Laws 1103. It does not operate for profit.

Considerable evidence was produced showing that in any number of civil actions brought by and against hospitals of this type, they have admitted and been described as being 'charitable corporation,' 'public institutions,' 'public hospitals' and 'public charitable corporations'; that they receive certain tax exemptions not enjoyed by private corporations; that they are licensed, inspected and subject to some regulation by the commissioner of health and the hospital cost commission; and that they receive state, city and town financial aid.

The distinction between a public and private corporation has long been recognized. A public corporation is an instrumentality of the state, founded and owned in the public interest, supported by public funds, and governed by those deriving their authority from the state. Public institutions such as state, county and city hospitals and asylums are owned by the public and are devoted chiefly to public purposes.

On the other hand, a corporation organized by permission of the legislature, supported largely by voluntary contributions, and managed by officers and directors who are not representatives of the state or any political subdivision, is a private corporation, although engaged in charitable work or performing duties similar to those of public corporations. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 17 U.S. 518, 669, 4 L.Ed. 629; Hughes v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 289 Ky. 123, 126, 158 S.W.2d 159. The difference between a public and private hospital is now clearly established, the latter being one founded and maintained by private persons or a corporation, the state or municipality having no voice in the management or control of its property or the formation of rules for its government. 41 C.J.S. Hospitals § 1, p. 332; 26 Am.Jur. 588, § 3; note, 24 A.L.R.2d 850, 851. The mere fact that it is the recipient of state aid, financial assistance from the General Assembly, special grants from the surrounding towns, or contributions from the United Fund, Community Chest or New Haven Foundation does not change its status from a private to a public hospital. Ninety-five per cent of its income is derived from charges for services rendered. West Coast Hospital Ass'n v. Hoare, Fla., 64 So.2d 293, 297.

It is true, as the plaintiff claims, that in any number of instances hospitals in this state have been referred to as 'public hospitals' or 'public institutions,' but in each instance consideration must be given to the particular problems in issue. When tax questions or general liability matters are dealt with, the terms are properly used and the courts have so categorized them. It does not follow, however, that such a characterization renders them subject to public control. That they are engaged in charitable work for the benefit of the public, and thereby affected with a public interest, does not make them public corporations. It means no more than that they are operated for the public generally without gain or profit. The test is whether, under the charter or corporate powers granted, they have the right to elect their own officers and directors, with the power to manage their own affairs. Levin v. Sinai Hospital, 186 Md. 174, 178, 46 A.2d 298; Washingtonian Home of Chicago v. City of Chicago, 157 Ill. 414, 422, 425, 41 N.E. 893, 29 L.R.A. 798.

The original act incorporating the defendant empowered it to 'make and execute such by-laws, rules, and regulations not contrary to the laws of this state as shall be deemed necessary for the proper management of the affairs of the corporation'; 13 Spec.Laws 1103, § 1; and provided for the selection of a board of trustees who 'shall have power to manage and conduct all the business and affairs of the corporation, and to appoint all necessary and proper servants, officers, attendants, and agents, and to remove the same at pleasure, and to do any and all acts necessary and proper to be done for the full and effectual carrying out of the purposes of said corporation.' Id., 1104, § 4. The defendant is found to be a private hospital with the right to exercise control over its own internal operations and management.

The next claim of the plaintiff is that the rules and regulations adopted to govern appointments to the medical staff are arbitrary. Under the new rules, appointments were to be made by the executive committee upon recommendation of the general staff and medical board to the joint conference committee. It is a fundamental and generally accepted rule that courts will not interfere with the internal management of a private corporation. Questions of policy and management are left solely to the honest decisions of the officers and directors, and the court is without authority to substitute its judgment for theirs. The same rule applies to private hospitals. 26 Am.Jur. 592, § 8. The rules adopted by the hospital effective in February of 1954 were similar to those of standard hospitals. Testimony from nationally recognized authorities classed them as reasonable and in accord with modern hospital practice. They were necessary to enable the hospital to acquire and maintain an accredited standing. Green v. City of St. Petersburg, 154 Fla. 339, 342, 17 So.2d 517. The provision for the division of its medical staff into several classes was a reasonable one, and the rules governing appointment to the staff apply to all physicians alike and tend to maintain a high degree of skill and integrity in the membership. The fact that appointments to the associate staff were to be 'limited to men of proven ability and experience' is not fatal as failing to set up a proper and just standard. It is not possible to prescribe by rule a standard of skill dependent...