Guibor v. Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1978
• Citation: 46 N.Y.2d 736,386 N.E.2d 247,413 N.Y.S.2d 638
• Parties: , 386 N.E.2d 247 Pierre GUIBOR, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN EYE, EAR AND THROAT HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 638

413 N.Y.S.2d 638

46 N.Y.2d 736, 386 N.E.2d 247

Pierre GUIBOR, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN EYE, EAR AND THROAT HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 6, 1978.

Dudley Gaffin, New York City, for appellant

Joseph P. Giasi, Jr., and Alexander L. Caccia, New York City, for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

Order affirmed, with costs, on the opinion by Mr. Justice Harold Birns at the Appellate Division (56 A.D.2d 359, 392 N.Y.S.2d 628).

We believe, however, that some mention should be made of the requirement that physicians, who allege that they have been improperly denied their staff privileges at a private hospital, exhaust their administrative remedies before availing themselves of the judicial process.

At common law, absent a contractual obligation to the contrary, a physician's continued professional association with a private hospital was within the unfettered discretion of the hospital's administrators. Denial of staff privileges, for whatever reason or for no reason at all, constituted no legal wrong. (Leider v. Beth Israel Hosp. Assn., 11 N.Y.2d 205, 208-209, 227 N.Y.S.2d 900, 901, 182 N.E.2d 393; Van Campen v. Olean Gen. Hosp., 210 App.Div. 204, 209, 205 N.Y.S. 554, 557, affd. 239 N.Y. 615, 147 N.E. 219.)

As this court has noted, this seemingly harsh common-law rule has only been recently tempered by the Legislature's enactment of section 2801-b of the Public Health Law. "No longer may a physician be denied professional privileges arbitrarily * * *. Reasons must be given for any termination, and those reasons must relate to legitimate concerns of the hospital or nursing home: patient care, patient welfare, objectives of the institution, or competency of the physician." (Fried v. Straussman, 41 N.Y.2d 376, 380, 393 N.Y.S.2d 334, 337, 361 N.E.2d 984, 987; Matter of Fritz v. Huntington Hosp., 39 N.Y.2d 339, 348, 384 N.Y.S.2d 92, 98, 348 N.E.2d 547, 554; Public Health Law, § 2801-b, subd. 1.)

Subdivision 2 of section 2801-b of the Public Health Law provides the allegedly aggrieved physician with a procedural avenue through which he can present his claim of a wrongful denial of professional privileges to the Public Health Council. The council is directed to make a prompt investigation of the matter, and is empowered to receive reports from the governing body of the hospital and the complainant in assessing the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Public Health Law, § 2801-b, subd. 3.) If the council finds cause to credit these claims, it must direct the appropriate body of the hospital to review its actions in denying the complainant professional privileges.

It appears all too obvious that when the Legislature has afforded physicians greater rights than those known at common law to establish or retain professional ties with hospitals, a physician is obligated to present his claim of an improper practice, in the first instance, to the administrative body charged with the protection...