Milford v. People's Community Hospital Authority

• Decision Date: 09 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 21,21
• Parties: Albert F. MILFORD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, a Michigan corporation, and Barry H. Alford, Chief of Staff of Beyer Memorial Hospital, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 835

155 N.W.2d 835

380 Mich. 49

Albert F. MILFORD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, a Michigan

corporation, and Barry H. Alford, Chief of Staff

of Beyer Memorial Hospital, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 21.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 9, 1968.

Lawrence, Ulrich & Tripp, Dobson, Griffin & Barense, by Wm. D. Barense, Ann Arbor, for plaintiff-appellee.

Cozadd, Shangle & Smith, by B. Ward Smith, Detroit, for defendants and appellants.

Sweeny, Dodd, Kerr, Wattles & Russell, Detroit, for amicus curiae; A. Stewart Kerr, Donald C. Morgan, Detroit, of counsel.

Before the Entire Bench.

KAVANAGH, Justice.

This case is here on appeal from decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed an order of the Washtenaw county circuit court dismissing plaintiff's complaint. In 1963 plaintiff, a duly licensed medical doctor, was a member of the staff of Beyer Memorial Hospital, one of four hospitals operated by defendant People's Community Hospital Authority, a State agency created pursuant to P.A.1945, No. 47, as amended. ¹ Defendant Barry H. Alford was the chief of staff of Beyer Memorial Hospital.

The staff bylaws of defendant Hospital Authority were adopted by the board of directors on January 18, 1962. Pursuant to the provisions of section 9.10 thereof, the executive committee of Beyer Memorial Hospital proposed to suspend or reduce certain of the staff membership privileges of plaintiff in the use of hospital facilities.

Plaintiff received a letter dated July 26, 1963, signed by defendant Alford as chief of staff, which read 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. Plaintiff attended said meeting, at which no stenographic record was kept, and after a discussion of the case in the presence of plaintiff, the executive committee excused him. After this meeting plaintiff received a letter containing the following:

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

'That Dr. Milford's handling of case No. 60530 be considered as inadequate, inappropriate and improper medical care, worthy of disciplinary action. That Dr. 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.'

Plaintiff was not given any facts upon which the decision of the executive committee to discipline him was based. He filed a timely appeal to the full staff of Beyer Memorial Hospital, which appeal operated as a stay of the disciplinary action taken by the executive committee.

October 22, 1963, was set as the date for the hearing of the appeal by the staff. Plaintiff requested that a stenographic record be made of the hearing on appeal, and his request was denied.

Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Washtenaw circuit court on October 15, 1963, to enjoin defendants from enforcing the disciplinary action of the executive committee and requested a judgment declaring the action of the executive committee a legal nullity.

Motions for summary judgment were made by both parties and denied by the court.

The trial commenced on January 11, 1965, before the circuit judge without a jury. Plaintiff introduced no evidence other than the staff bylaws and then rested his case.

The trial judge in a written opinion, filed January 20, 1965, denied plaintiff's prayer for relief, finding that he had not sustained the burden of proof and further the court refused to adjudge the action of the executive committee in restricting plaintiff's rights as null and void. The opinion directed the attorneys for defendants to prepare a judgment in accordance therewith. On January 27, 1965, counsel for defendants filed a motion for entry of the judgment.

However, on January 20, 1965, plaintiff filed with the court a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint along with certain affidavits in support thereof and a copy of the proposed supplemental complaint.

In the supplemental complaint plaintiff claimed that at the annual staff meeting of Beyer Memorial Hospital on January 12, 1965, the executive committee presented a list of those doctors who had been approved for reappointment to the hospital staff pursuant to section 4.12 of the hospital bylaws, which reads as follows:

'Section 4.12 ANNUAL REAPPOINTMENT. At least 10 days prior to the annual meeting of the staff of each hospital in each calendar year the executive committee of each such staff shall meet and approve the reappointment of such present members as they may determine advisable. The list of members as approved shall be referred by the secretary of such committee to the secretary of his staff who shall forthwith send a copy thereof to all current members of such staff. At the annual meeting in each year of such staff the secretary thereof shall present such list as approved by its executive committee. The staff shall hear any objections to the reappointments as presented or hear any person whose reappointment has not been approved by the executive committee. The staff, may by a two-thirds vote of its members present either approve the list of members as submitted or it may strike a name therefrom or add the name thereto of a physician whose name has been omitted by the executive committee. The secretary of each staff shall forward the list of physicians names as approved to the secretary of the board for consideration by the board at their annual meeting. Any physician feeling himself aggrieved, because of his name being omitted from the list, as approved by the staff, may file a claim of appeal with the board in the same manner as is provided for an appeal on an original application, in which case the secretary of the board shall obtain a report from the secretary of the staff setting forth the reasons why the staff did not recommend reappointment of such physician. The procedure by the board for reappointment shall be the same as for original appointment.'

Plaintiff's name did not appear on the list. The minutes of the annual staff meeting disclose that the reason for the removal of plaintiff's name from the reappointment list was that he had been considered guilty of 'poor professional practice.'

Thereafter, pursuant to the motion to file the supplemental complaint and the answer thereto, the circuit judge in an opinion dated March 11, 1965, stated 'that (1) the matters brought forth in the supplement to the amended complaint would not create any new facts which would in any way alter the opinion of the court which was filed on January 20, 1965, and (2) the matters brought forward in plaintiff's supplement to amended complaint are not such as contemplated under supplemental proceedings as provided for in Rule 118.5, Michigan General Court Rules.' The court denied plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental complaint and defendants were instructed to present (1) a separate order denying plaintiff's motion and (2) a judgment in accordance with the court's prior opinion.

On March 16, 1965, the order denying the motion for the supplemental complaint and the judgment of the court were signed by the circuit judge, and filed.

On April 1, 1965, plaintiff filed his claim of appeal from the judgment.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court for the reason the bylaws of People's Community Hospital Authority had 'absolutely no standard whatsoever' to meet constitutional due process requirements. (4 Mich.App. 142, 149, 144 N.W.2d 687)

Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on February 28, 1967.

We deal first with the subject of mootness. Plaintiff in his supplemental complaint alleges that he was removed from the staff of Beyer Memorial Hospital pursuant to section 4.12 of the staff bylaws, which provides for annual reappointment. One might argue that as plaintiff is no longer a member of the staff, the question of his reduction of privileges is moot. Appellant and appellees each request us to decide the question, since, as they say, the matter is of great importance not only to the hospital and doctor involved but to all the doctors and publicly-owned and operated hospitals in the State.

The nature of this case is such that we are unlikely to again receive the question in the near future, and doctors and other people dealing with public hospital corporations cannot hope to have an answer to the questions raised unless we proceed to a decision. ² For these reasons, we conclude the case is of sufficient importance to warrant our decision. See Lafayette Dramatic Productions, Inc. v. Ferentz, 305 Mich. 193, 9 N.W.2d 57, 145 A.L.R. 1158; Robson v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., 5 Mich.App. 90, 145 N.W.2d 846.

The issue for decision in this case is whether the People's Community Hospital Authority, a public hospital authority, has adopted legally effective standards for restricting the privileges of its staff.

The pertinent bylaws 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. (Emphasis supplied.)

'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 bylaws,...