King v. Bartholomew County Hosp., 1-984A218

• Decision Date: 15 April 1985
• Docket Number: No. 1-984A218,1-984A218
• Citation: 476 N.E.2d 877
• Parties: Frank KING, M.D., for and on Behalf of Himself and all Other Similarly Situate Doctors at the Bartholomew County Hospital, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY HOSPITAL, Appellee (Defendant Below).
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 877

476 N.E.2d 877

Frank KING, M.D., for and on Behalf of Himself and all Other Similarly Situate Doctors at the Bartholomew County Hospital, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY HOSPITAL, Appellee (Defendant Below).

No. 1-984A218.

Court of Appeals of Indiana First District.

April 15, 1985.

Patrick W. Harrison, Cline, King, Beck, Harrison & Runnels, Columbus, for appellant.

Cynthia A. Boll, Jones & Patterson, Columbus, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Judge.

Dr. Frank King (King) appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of Bartholomew County Hospital (BCH), the effect of which denied his request for a permanent injunction.

We affirm.

In particular, King sued on his own behalf and on behalf of all other physicians applying for medical staff privileges at BCH, to enjoin the hospital from requiring the applicants to execute a grant of absolute immunity and a release of liability to the hospital, its representatives, and any third party with respect to any and all civil liability which might arise from any acts, communications, reports, recommendations, or disclosures involving an applicant or appointee, performed, made, requested, or received by the hospital and its representatives to, from, or by any third party including other members of the medical staff concerning but not limited to certain specified activities implemented in the hospital credentialing process.

Each year, any physician intent on practicing at BCH, regardless of whether he is an incumbent staff member or new applicant, must submit his application for the upcoming year's staff membership. King was first appointed to the medical staff of BCH in 1980 and then again in 1981 and 1982 for successive one-year terms. However, in 1983, King refused to sign the application for the upcoming year because the revised form required execution of the grant of absolute immunity and release of liability clauses. Instead, he filed his complaint for a permanent injunction and a temporary restraining order. Subsequently, both parties submitted their respective Motions for Summary Judgment accompanied by affidavits. Following hearing on the motions, judgment was entered for BCH. King's subsequent, timely appeal focuses upon whether or not there existed a genuine issue as to a material fact and whether BCH was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We find no genuine issue as to a material fact exists for the reason that the facts are not in dispute. King initially applied for staff membership at BCH in May, 1980. The application form in existence at that time contained a provision whereby the applicant agreed to abide by BCH's by-laws, rules, regulations as may be enacted from time to time. Although not specifically set forth in the 1980 application form, the grant of absolute immunity and release of liability clauses of which the doctor now complains, were a part of the hospital's by-laws in effect at that time and thus, incorporated by reference. In King's letter of acceptance to the hospital's medical staff in 1980, he again agreed to abide by the hospital's by-laws, rules and regulations in force during the term of his appointment. The record shows that for each year when King accepted another one-year term on the hospital's medical staff, he signed similar statements whereby he acknowledged the by-laws and agreed to abide by them. In 1983, the hospital's Credential's Committee approved a new application form which set out in detail the absolute immunity and release of liability provisions contained in the by-laws. King refused to complete the form and instead sought judicial process to enjoin the hospital from requiring an applicant to execute these provisions as prerequisite to staff membership.

No genuine issue as to a material fact is present in the record. Our next and final step then, is to determine whether the hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. IND.CODE 34-4-12.6-3 provides immunity from civil liability to any persons or organizations, including peer review committees, who, in good faith, furnish records, information or assistance to a peer review committee, in regard to evaluation of qualifications of professional health care providers, or of patient care. Further, the personnel of a peer review committee shall be immune from any civil action arising from any determinations made in good faith in regard to evaluation of patient care. IND.CODE 34-4-12.6-3(d) specifically provides that no restraining order or injunction shall be issued against a peer review committee to interfere with the proper functions of the committee acting in good faith in regard to evaluation of patient care. A peer review committee is that committee which has the responsibility of evaluation of the qualifications of professional health care providers, (including licensed physicians) or of patient care rendered by professional health care providers. See, IND.CODE 34-4-12.6-1(c).

Further, county hospital legislation provides that the board, as the supreme authority in the hospital, shall have the power to determine appointments to the medical staff in accordance with IND.CODE 16-10-1-6.5 and IND.CODE 16-12.1-5-1 and the medical staff by-laws and rules approved by it. The governing board of the hospital is the hospital's supreme authority responsible for the management, operation, functioning and control of the hospital, including the appointment of the members of the medical staff and the assignment of privileges to members of the medical staff with the advice and recommendations of the medical staff. See, I.C. 16-10-1-6.5. Specifically the statute provides:

... The medical staff of a hospital shall be an organized group which shall be responsible to the governing board for the clinical and scientific work of the hospital, advice regarding professional matter and policies to the governing board, and shall have the responsibility of reviewing the professional practices in the hospital for the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality, and for the improvement of the care of patients in the hospital. This review shall include, but shall not be limited to, the quality and necessity of the care provided patients and the preventability of complications and death occurring in the hospital. The members of any medical staff committee organized for the purpose of conducting medical review, being retrospective and not a part of current patient care, shall have an absolute immunity from civil liability for communications made in committee meetings, and reports and recommendations made by the committee arising from deliberations by the committee to the governing board of the hospital or another duly authorized medical staff committee. (Emphasis added).

Finally, I.C. 16-12.1-5.1 provides that all physicians possessing an unlimited license to practice medicine and surgery are eligible for membership on the medical staff, subject, however to the power of the board to establish and enforce reasonable standards and rules concerning the qualifications for admission to the medical staff and to practice in the hospital and reasonable rules for retention of such membership and for the granting of medical staff privileges within the hospital. The statute specifically provides that:

(b) Such reasonable standards and rules may not discriminate against practitioners of any school of medicine who hold an unlimited license but may, in the interest of good patient care, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing,...