Hoke v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSP. AUTH., INC., C-C-74-044-M.
| Decision Date | 16 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. C-C-74-044-M.,C-C-74-044-M. |
| Citation | 550 F. Supp. 1276 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | Harold R. HOKE, M.D., Plaintiff, v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, INC.; Mr. Harold C. Green; Dr. W. Blair Bryan; Dr. O. Hunter Jones and Dr. Robert A. Rimer, Defendants. |
William H. Elam, Charlotte, N.C., and McNeill Smith, Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, Greensboro, N.C., for plaintiff.
John G. Golding, Golding, Crews, Meekins, Gordon & Gray, Charlotte, N.C., for defendants.
This suit was started on February 25, 1974. After lengthy proceedings, it was tried to a jury, May 1 through May 11, 1979, on the issue of liability only. The jury found by its verdict that defendants had denied plaintiff due process of law "by suspending him from his privileges to practice medicine and surgery at Charlotte Memorial Hospital, without giving him notice of the charges against him, and notice of the various meetings or proceedings being conducted about his work in December 1973, and an opportunity to present his side of the case."
The question of damages was reserved for later trial.
Three and one-half years later, on November 8, 1982, the case finally reached trial on the question of damages.
At a final pretrial conference on Friday, November 5, 1982, the court eliminated four of plaintiff's significant claims. These were claims alleging (a) wrongful communications with the press; (b) personal bias of members of the trial committee; (c) violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act; and (d) punitive damages. These decisions were listed in a memorandum to counsel which was prepared before court on November 8, 1982, and which appears in the file.
As court was about to begin on Monday, November 8, 1982, defendants' counsel made a motion that I disqualify myself as judge. The reason stated was that in late 1979, after the May 11, 1979, jury verdict in this case, plaintiff had sued a High Point, North Carolina newspaper for breach of an advertising contract and had obtained a consent judgment on the 25th day of February, 1980, and that my son, James B. McMillan, Jr., who lives and practices law in the Middle District of North Carolina, was one of the lawyers representing Dr. Hoke in that case.
I had learned at some time several years ago that my son did represent or had represented Dr. Hoke in that litigation, but thought it of no consequence in this case, and had completely forgotten about it in recent years until counsel for the defendants mentioned it in connection with his motion. The incident appeared to me of no more significance than a number of other irrelevant facts, not mentioned in the motion, such as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., Matter of
...and the judicial system. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. * The insurers rely on Hoke v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 1276 (W.D.N.C.1982), in which the judge recused himself because his son once represented one of the parties in unrelated litigat......
-
United States v. Diamond, 82 Cr. 206 (DNE).
... ... Benson Co., Inc. and E-K Capital Corp. These schemes were similar ... ...
-
Diversifoods, Inc. v. Diversifoods, Inc., 84 C 3437.
...Appearance of Impropriety. To establish the appearance of impropriety, the plaintiff relies on Hoke v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 1276 (W.D.N.C.1982). In that case the judge disqualified himself under the appearance of impropriety standard because his son ha......
-
Wilmington Towing Co. v. Cape Fear Towing Co., 85-14-CIV-7.
...are distinguishable. In particular, the court notes that Judge McMillan's decision to recuse in Hoke v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 1276 (W.D.N.C.1982), involved a case in which his son, a practicing attorney, though not representing the party in that action,......