Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, No. 22002.

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtSEVERSON, Circuit.
Citation649 N.W.2d 916,2002 SD 93
PartiesJohn J. GLUSCIC, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AVERA ST. LUKE'S, a South Dakota Community Hospital, Defendant and Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 22002.
Decision Date31 July 2002

649 N.W.2d 916
2002 SD 93

John J. GLUSCIC, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
AVERA ST. LUKE'S, a South Dakota Community Hospital, Defendant and Appellee

No. 22002.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued April 24, 2002.

Decided July 31, 2002.


649 N.W.2d 917
Roy Wise and Chester A. Groseclose of Richardson, Groseclose, Wyly, Wise & Sauck Aberdeen, South Dakota, Richard G. Braman of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellant

Edwin E. Evans and Melissa C. Hinton of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellee.

SEVERSON, Circuit Judge.

[¶ 1.] John Gluscic, M.D. (Gluscic) appeals the circuit court's final judgment of June 25, 2001, denying his application for a preliminary injunction and for a permanent injunction enjoining Avera St. Luke's (ASL) from revoking his medical staff privileges. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[¶ 2.] On June 26, 1997, the Board of Trustees of ASL in Aberdeen, South Dakota voted to close the medical/dental staff to new applicants for staff privileges for the performance of laminectomies, closed fractures of the spine and spinal fusions. In addition, the Board voted to close the medical/dental staff for orthopedic surgery privileges except for two orthopedic surgeons already in the recruitment process.

[¶ 3.] In 1998, nearly a year after the Board voted to close the staff, Orthopedic Surgery Specialists (OSS) recruited Dr. John Mahan (Mahan), a spine-fellowship trained orthopedic surgeon. Despite notice that the staff at ASL was closed for orthopedic surgery privileges, Mahan proceeded with his move to the Aberdeen area to join OSS. At that time, Mahan requested an application for staff privileges from ASL. ASL refused the request asserting that the staff was closed to new applicants in this area.

Mahan Litigation

[¶ 4.] In response to the refusal of his request for an application for staff privileges,

649 N.W.2d 918
Mahan and other OSS physicians commenced an action against ASL in September 1998. The plaintiffs challenged the June 1997 Board decision closing staff privileges to new orthopedic surgeons. Mahan sought a permanent injunction requiring ASL to provide an application for medical/dental staff privileges to all physicians requesting one

[¶ 5.] On June 30, 1999, the circuit court entered a judgment granting Mahan's motion for a permanent injunction. The court further ordered that ASL provide applications to Mahan and any other doctor in association with OSS and that it process the applications in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in the medical staff bylaws.

[¶ 6.] ASL appealed the circuit court's June 30, 1999, judgment. ASL filed motions to stay the judgment which were denied. Accordingly, pursuant to the circuit court's mandatory injunction, ASL provided an application for staff privileges to Mahan.

Dr. Gluscic's Application

[¶ 7.] During the course of the Mahan dispute, OSS recruited another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Gluscic, to join its practice. On July 5, 2000, Gluscic requested an application for medical/dental staff privileges from ASL. ASL provided an application to Gluscic pursuant to the circuit court's mandatory injunction. ASL also sent a letter to Gluscic alerting him that the application was being provided pursuant to the injunction which had been appealed. The letter further advised that, "[t]o the extent that the Supreme Court modifies or reverses the trial court judgment, your application and any ensuing hospital privileges granted to you will be subject to that decision."

[¶ 8.] On September 2, 2000, Gluscic submitted his completed application to ASL. Gluscic received temporary privileges in orthopedic surgery on November 28, 2000. At its December 2000 meeting, ASL's Board granted privileges to Gluscic subject to the decision of the South Dakota Supreme Court to the extent that it might modify or reverse the circuit court's June 30, 1999, judgment. Gluscic was advised in a letter from ASL that his privileges were granted pursuant to the circuit court's June 30, 1999, judgment which had been appealed. The letter further advised Glusic that "[t]o the extent that the Supreme Court [modifies] or [reverses] the circuit court judgment, your application and any ensuing hospital privileges granted to you will be subject to that decision."

Effect of Reversal of Injunction: Present Controversy

[¶ 9.] On January 10, 2001, this Court issued its decision in Mahan v. Avera St. Luke's, 2001 SD 9, 621 N.W.2d 150. In that decision, this Court held that the ASL Board's closure of the staff was reasonable, in good faith, and a valid exercise of the Board's authority to make business decisions to meet the healthcare needs of the community. Mahan, 2001 SD 9 at ¶ 32, 621 N.W.2d at 160. Additionally, this Court determined that the staff closure did not constitute a breach of the medical/dental staff bylaws. Mahan, 2001 SD 9 at ¶ 35, 621 N.W.2d at 161. Accordingly, this Court reversed the circuit court's June 30, 1999, judgment and also reversed the circuit court's issuance of a permanent injunction. Id.

[¶ 10.] Pursuant to this court's decision, the circuit court entered a final judgment on April 23, 2001. The court vacated its June 24, 1999, memorandum decision, its June 30, 1999, judgment and its permanent injunction and entered a final judgment in favor of ASL.

[¶ 11.] Following this Court's decision in Mahan, the ASL Board approved a resolution rescinding Gluscic's staff privileges.

649 N.W.2d 919
In response, Gluscic's attorneys advised ASL's counsel that Gluscic planned to apply for a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Stockwell v. Stockwell, No. 25412.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • October 13, 2010
    ...based on oral or documentary evidence, may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, 2002 S.D. 93, ¶ 15, 649 N.W.2d 916, 919 (quoting Faulk v. Faulk, 2002 S.D. 51, ¶ 9, 644 N.W.2d 632, 634 (quoting In re Estate of Catron, 2001 S.D. 57, ¶ 11, 627 N.W.2d 175, 17......
  • St. John v. Peterson, No. 26456.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • September 4, 2013
    ...a judgment [¶ 21.] We have previously discussed the legal effect of reversal. See Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, 2002 S.D. 93, ¶ 20, 649 N.W.2d 916, 920;Janssen v. Tusha, 67 S.D. 597, 601, 297 N.W. 119, 120 (1941). We have stated that “ ‘the mandate of this court ordering a reversal of a judg......
  • Jacobson v. Leisinger, No. 24491.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 12, 2008
    ...108, ¶ 25, 651 N.W.2d at 701. Accordingly, "[a] judgment vacated on appeal is of no further force and effect." Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, 2002 SD 93, ¶ 18, 649 N.W.2d 916, 920 (citations omitted); see also Hasse v. Fraternal Order of Eagles No. 2421 of Vermillion, 2003 SD 23, ¶ 9, 658 N.W......
  • Peterson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y, No. 26214.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 27, 2012
    ...v. Stockwell, 2010 S.D. 79, ¶ 17, 790 N.W.2d 52, 60 (alteration in original) (quoting Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, 2002 S.D. 93, ¶ 15, 649 N.W.2d 916, 919). Because SDCL 1–26–37 requires our review of the circuit court's decision to be the same as any other appeal from a circuit court, and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Stockwell v. Stockwell, No. 25412.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • October 13, 2010
    ...based on oral or documentary evidence, may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, 2002 S.D. 93, ¶ 15, 649 N.W.2d 916, 919 (quoting Faulk v. Faulk, 2002 S.D. 51, ¶ 9, 644 N.W.2d 632, 634 (quoting In re Estate of Catron, 2001 S.D. 57, ¶ 11, 627 N.W.2d 175, 17......
  • St. John v. Peterson, No. 26456.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • September 4, 2013
    ...a judgment [¶ 21.] We have previously discussed the legal effect of reversal. See Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, 2002 S.D. 93, ¶ 20, 649 N.W.2d 916, 920;Janssen v. Tusha, 67 S.D. 597, 601, 297 N.W. 119, 120 (1941). We have stated that “ ‘the mandate of this court ordering a reversal of a judg......
  • Jacobson v. Leisinger, No. 24491.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 12, 2008
    ...108, ¶ 25, 651 N.W.2d at 701. Accordingly, "[a] judgment vacated on appeal is of no further force and effect." Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, 2002 SD 93, ¶ 18, 649 N.W.2d 916, 920 (citations omitted); see also Hasse v. Fraternal Order of Eagles No. 2421 of Vermillion, 2003 SD 23, ¶ 9, 658 N.W......
  • Peterson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y, No. 26214.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 27, 2012
    ...v. Stockwell, 2010 S.D. 79, ¶ 17, 790 N.W.2d 52, 60 (alteration in original) (quoting Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke's, 2002 S.D. 93, ¶ 15, 649 N.W.2d 916, 919). Because SDCL 1–26–37 requires our review of the circuit court's decision to be the same as any other appeal from a circuit court, and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT