Milford v. People's Community Hospital Authority

• Decision Date: 13 September 1966
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 695,695,2
• Citation: 144 N.W.2d 687,4 Mich.App. 142
• Parties: Albert F. MILFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, a Michigan corporation, and Barry H. Alford, Chief of Staff of Beyer Memorial Hospital, Defendants-Appellees. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 687

144 N.W.2d 687

4 Mich.App. 142

Albert F. MILFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, a Michigan corporation, and Barry H. Alford, Chief of Staff of Beyer Memorial Hospital, Defendants-Appellees.

Cal. No. 695.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Sept. 13, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1966.

William D. Barense, Lawrence, Ulrich, Tripp & Barense, Ypsilanti, for appellant.

B. Ward Smith, Cozadd, Shangle & Smith, Detroit, for appellees.

Before McGREGOR, P.J., and HOLBROOK and QUINN, JJ.

McGREGOR, Presiding Judge.

The decisive issue in this case is whether or not the People's Community Hospital Authority has adopted legally effective standards for restricting the privileges of staff physicians in the hospitals operated by the authority.

Plaintiff in this case is a physician, duly licensed to practice medicine in the state of Michigan, and licensed under both state and federal law to prescribe, dispense and administer narcotic drugs. For over 20 years he has been a member of the medical staff of Beyer Memorial Hospital, now operated by the People's Community Hospital Authority, which was organized under P.A.1945, No. 47, as amended. (C.L.1948, § 331.1 et seq. (Stat.Ann.1958 Rev. § 5.2456(1) et seq.)) This hospital is the only hospital in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Defendant Barry H. Alford was the chief of staff of the hospital at the time the suit was commenced, October 15, 1963. When the amended complaint was filed, June 15, 1964, he was past chief to staff of the hospital, and a member of its executive committee.

In January, 1962, the board of directors, or hospital board of the People's Community Hospital Authority adopted regulations called 'Staff By-Laws' for the supervision of the medical staffs of the hospitals operated by the Authority, including the Beyer Memorial Hospital. The By-Laws delineating the organization of the staff of each hospital provide for the annual election by the staff of a chief of staff, a vice-chief of staff, and a secretary. These three elected officers, together with the chiefs of each of four administrative departments, the immediate past chief of staff, and two other members at large, form the executive committee of the staff of each hospital. The relevant by-laws read as follows:

'Section 9.10. REDUCTION IN PRIVILEGES. Any physician may have his privileges reduced by his executive committee, after notice and hearing thereon, if, in the opinion of such committee, it appears that such a reduction would be to the best interest of the hospital and its patients, in which case the physician shall have the same right of appeal and the proceedings shall be the same as in cases of revocation of membership.'

'Section 4.13. REVOCATION OF MEMBERSHIP. Any physician may have his membership on the staff revoked after notice and hearing thereon by the executive committee of the hospital staff where he is a member for violation of any of these by-laws, unprofessional conduct, malpractice or unethical practice, and it shall be the duty of such committee to revoke such membership where it appears that the revocation would be to the best interests of the hospital and its patients. In the event any physician feels himself aggrieved by such action, he may appeal therefrom to his staff in which case the proceedings thereafter shall be the same as for original appointment to the staff, including the further right to appeal to the board.'

Section 4.5 provides that the executive committee shall either approve or deny a physician's application for admission to the hospital staff after a report from the credentials committee. By-law section 4.6 provides for review of the application for membership by the medical staff of the hospital involved. The application is then forwarded to the board of directors for final action. If the application is denied by the staff, the reasons for denial must be attached to the application if appeal is taken to the board of directors.

The undisputed facts show that the controversy in question was initiated when the plaintiff received a letter dated July 26, 1963, on Beyer Memorial Hospital stationery, signed by the defendant Alford, as chief of staff, reading as follows:

'The next regular meeting of the executive committee will be held on Friday, August 2, 1963, at 8:30 a.m. in the conference room of the superintendent's office.

'Your case No. 60530 will be discussed and you are requested to be present, so that you may speak in your own behalf.'

There was no mention in this letter of the nature of the matter to be discussed. The plaintiff attended the meeting of August 2, 1963, at which no stenographic record was kept. After discussion of the case, with him present, he was excused and the executive committee considered the matter further. After the meeting, the plaintiff received a letter containing the following:

'At the executive committee meeting of August 2, 1963, the following resolutions were passed:

'That Doctor Milford's handling of case No. 60530 be considered as inadequate, inappropriate, and improper medical care, worthy of disciplinary action. That Doctor Milford be prohibited from using narcotic drugs beyond 48 hours except with the written approval on the order sheet of the chief of department or his designate until further orders from the executive committee."

The plaintiff has never been given any facts on which the decision was based. On August 12, 1963, the plaintiff wrote defendant Alford that he was appealing the decision of the executive committee. Plaintiff was subsequently notified that his appeal would be presented on October 22, 1963. On October 2, 1963, plaintiff asked to have a court reporter present at the October 22 hearing, so that an accurate transcript of the proceedings would be available. Under date of October 3, 1963, plaintiff was informed that the presence of a court reporter would not be permitted. Plaintiff then brought this action, praying that the court enjoin enforcement of the executive committee resolution of August 2, 1963.

The circuit judge denied the motions for summary judgment made by each side. On January 11, 1965, the trial was commenced before the judge without a jury. The plaintiff introduced no evidence other than the by-laws and then rested. The circuit judge thereupon granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, from which this appeal is taken.

Plaintiff contends that, although he introduced no evidence other than the...