Mahmoodian v. United Hosp. Center, Inc., 19504

• Decision Date: 25 April 1991
• Docket Number: No. 19504,19504
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Saeed MAHMOODIAN, M.D., Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. UNITED HOSPITAL CENTER, INC. and Bruce C. Carter, Defendants Below, Appellants; Ali Rahimian, M.D., and Florencia C. Lopez, M.D., Defendants Below.

Page 750

404 S.E.2d 750

185 W.Va. 59

Saeed MAHMOODIAN, M.D., Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. UNITED HOSPITAL CENTER, INC. and Bruce C. Carter, Defendants

Below, Appellants;

Ali Rahimian, M.D., and Florencia C. Lopez, M.D., Defendants Below.

No. 19504.

Supreme Court of Appeals of

West Virginia.

Submitted Jan. 6, 1991.

Decided April 25, 1991.

[185 W.Va. 60] Syllabus by the Court

1. The decision of a private hospital to revoke, suspend, restrict or to refuse to renew the staff appointment or clinical privileges of a medical staff member is subject to limited judicial review to ensure that there was substantial compliance with the hospital's medical staff bylaws governing such a decision, as well as to ensure that the medical staff bylaws afford basic notice and fair hearing procedures, including an impartial tribunal.

2. A private or a public hospital, regardless of the breadth of discretion that is extended to it, may revoke or otherwise affect adversely the staff appointment or clinical privileges of a medical staff member only if, as an element of basic notice, the medical staff bylaws provide a reasonably definite standard proscribing the conduct

[185 W.Va. 61] upon which the revocation or other adverse action is based

3. A hospital may adopt and enforce a medical staff bylaw providing that the disruptive conduct of a physician, in the sense of his or her inability to work in harmony with other health care personnel at the hospital, is a ground for denying, suspending, restricting, refusing to renew or revoking the staff appointment or clinical privileges of the offending physician, when such inability may have an adverse impact upon overall patient care at the hospital.

4. The decision of a private hospital revoking or otherwise affecting adversely the staff appointment or clinical privileges of a medical staff member will be sustained when, as an element of fair hearing procedures, there is substantial evidence supporting that decision.

Herbert G. Underwood, Irene M. Keeley, Matthew J. Mullaney, Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, for appellants.

Jerald E. Jones, Kathryn K. Allen, West & Jones, Clarksburg, for appellee.

McHUGH, Justice:

This appeal involves the revocation of a physician's staff appointment privileges as a member of the medical staff of a private hospital. The issues include whether such a revocation is subject to judicial review and, if so, the scope of that review, as well as whether such a revocation may be premised exclusively upon disruptive behavior of a competent physician which may affect adversely the quality of patient care at the hospital. We conclude that the Circuit Court of Harrison County improperly granted a permanent injunction against the revocation of medical staff appointment privileges in this case and, accordingly, we reverse, for the reasons stated in this opinion.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The record in this case is voluminous, reflecting both the many steps in the decision-making process and the thoroughness of the evidence received.

The appellants, two of the defendants below, are the United Hospital Center, Inc., of Clarksburg, West Virginia ("UHC"), and Bruce C. Carter, UHC's president. ¹ The appellee, the plaintiff below, is Saeed Mahmoodian, M.D. ("Dr. Mahmoodian"). Dr. Mahmoodian is a physician, licensed to practice medicine in the State of West Virginia. He is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. He had been granted medical staff appointment privileges in obstetrics and gynecology at UHC or its predecessor corporation for about eighteen years at the time the complaint for injunctive relief was filed in the circuit court. Dr. Mahmoodian does not have medical staff appointment privileges at any other hospital and is not licensed to practice medicine in any other state.

UHC is a private, not-for-profit hospital incorporated under the laws of the State of West Virginia. It was created voluntarily by private individuals. It is operated by an elected board of directors. It is not owned or operated by any governmental entity. ²

A. Proceedings Before the Medical Staff

In February, 1988, UHC commenced against Dr. Mahmoodian the "corrective action" process at issue here, pursuant to articles VII and VIII of UHC's medical staff bylaws. Dr. Mahmoodian was notified in writing of the charges, including "a practice of harassment of employees and physicians" at UHC. An ad hoc investigative committee, consisting of four members of UHC's medical staff who were not obstetricians/gynecologists, was formed, even though the medical staff bylaws did not require such a committee. The investigative committee heard informal testimony and received affidavits. Dr. Mahmoodian informally testified before the investigative committee. He was allowed to be represented by an attorney at the investigative committee proceedings.

The investigative committee ultimately recommended unanimously that Dr. Mahmoodian's medical staff appointment privileges at UHC be revoked for a virtually continuous pattern of disruptive and unprofessional behavior affecting UHC's medical staff physicians and obstetrical nurses and patients. This behavior had created a work environment detrimental to the delivery of quality patient care. ³

The executive committee of the medical staff, consisting of fourteen of the ninety medical staff members, adopted unanimously the investigative committee's recommendation. The only obstetrician/gynecologist on the medical staff executive committee abstained from voting. ⁴ Dr. Mahmoodian thereafter requested and received an evidentiary hearing before an ad hoc hearing committee consisting of three medical staff members who were not obstetrician/gynecologists and who had not participated in the investigative process. An impartial local attorney served as a hearing officer. With the agreement of the hearing committee, both Dr. Mahmoodian and the executive committee of the medical staff were represented by an attorney at the evidentiary hearing before the hearing committee. The hearing committee heard live testimony, including Dr. Mahmoodian's. In addition, both the executive committee, over Dr. Mahmoodian's objection, and Dr. Mahmoodian were permitted to After the evidentiary hearing the hearing committee confirmed unanimously the medical staff executive committee's recommendation to revoke Dr. Mahmoodian's medical staff appointment privileges at UHC. Pursuant to § 8.05(h) of UHC's medical staff bylaws, the hearing committee concluded that the medical staff executive committee's recommendation did not "lack any factual basis" and was not "arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious." ⁶ The hearing committee found that the weight of the evidence indicated that Dr. Mahmoodian had instigated the turmoil and hostility in the obstetrical department of UHC and that the potential existed that such behavior would affect patient care adversely. Revocation was recommended in lieu of less severe discipline because Dr. Mahmoodian previously had been reprimanded formally on one occasion, and his medical staff appointment privileges had been suspended for a year on another occasion, for similar conduct. In addition, Dr. Mahmoodian refused to accept any responsibility for any of the turmoil in the obstetrical department of UHC.

                [185 W.Va. 63] submit hearsay testimony. 5  Dr. Mahmoodian was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine any witness at the evidentiary hearing and to call his own witnesses
                

The entire medical staff of UHC subsequently received Dr. Mahmoodian's written response to the charges and thereafter voted 32-17 to recommend to UHC's board of directors that Dr. Mahmoodian's medical staff appointment privileges be revoked. No obstetrician/gynecologist on the medical staff voted.

B. Proceedings Before the Hospital Board

Dr. Mahmoodian, accompanied by an attorney, later met with the appellate review committee of UHC's board of directors. The appellate review committee sat as an appellate body, under UHC's medical staff bylaws, to review the personnel decision of the medical staff. In December, 1988, the appellate review committee of UHC's board of directors affirmed the medical staff's decision to revoke Dr. Mahmoodian's medical staff appointment privileges, effective at the end of the day on January 31, 1989, and Dr. Mahmoodian was notified in writing of that decision. No obstetrician/gynecologist and no person who had participated in any of the medical staff proceedings voted as a member of the board of directors' appellate review committee.

C. Proceedings Before the Circuit Court

Dr. Mahmoodian subsequently brought a civil action in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia ("the trial court"), primarily to obtain an injunction against UHC's revocation of Dr. Mahmoodian's medical staff appointment privileges. After a hearing the trial court, in February, 1989, denied Dr. Mahmoodian's request for a preliminary injunction. Thereafter, Dr. Mahmoodian requested this Court to grant a preliminary injunction. In April, 1989, this Court granted Dr. Mahmoodian's request for a preliminary injunction. ⁷ On November 30, 1989, the trial court, feeling "constrained to defer" to this Court's ruling granting a preliminary injunction, entered UHC and its president, Mr. Carter, have brought this appeal. This Court is the seventh body to hear this matter (after the investigative committee, the medical staff executive committee, the hearing committee, the full medical staff, the appellate review committee of the hospital's board of directors and the circuit court).

[185 W.Va. 64] an order granting the permanent injunctive relief requested by Dr. Mahmoodian. The trial court did not, however, change its findings of fact made when earlier denying a preliminary injunction.

II. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. The Law

The threshold question in this case is whether the revocation of a physician's medical staff appointment privileges at a private hospital is subject to judicial...