Miller v. Indiana Hosp.

• Decision Date: 27 April 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 81-1091.
• Citation: Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 562 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D. Pa. 1983)
• Parties: Ralph J. MILLER, M.D., v. INDIANA HOSPITAL, a corporation; Henry F. Hild; Donald F. Smith; William R. McMillen; John S. Simpson; Thomas S. Barbor; Samuel W. Jack, Jr.; Mrs. C. Fred Hildebrand; Mrs. Wanda M. Weyandt; Harry C. McCreary; C. Wilmer Johnston; George M. Evans; Donald S. Brody; Roger J. Reschini; Joseph Kovalchick; William G. Evans, M.D.; Melvin C. Williams, M.D.; Robert G. Goldstrohm, M.D.; David C. Hughes, M.D.; Ralph F. Waldo, M.D.; Herbert L. Hanna, M.D.; Richard N. Freda, M.D.; Frank Weiner, M.D.; Henry Mitchell, M.D.; Ralph R. Brown, M.D.; H. Arnold Muller, M.D.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

562 F. Supp. 1259

Ralph J. MILLER, M.D., v.INDIANA HOSPITAL, a corporation; Henry F. Hild; Donald F. Smith; William R. McMillen; John S. Simpson; Thomas S. Barbor; Samuel W. Jack, Jr.; Mrs. C. Fred Hildebrand; Mrs. Wanda M. Weyandt; Harry C. McCreary; C. Wilmer Johnston; George M. Evans; Donald S. Brody; Roger J. Reschini; Joseph Kovalchick; William G. Evans, M.D.; Melvin C. Williams, M.D.; Robert G. Goldstrohm, M.D.; David C. Hughes, M.D.; Ralph F. Waldo, M.D.; Herbert L. Hanna, M.D.; Richard N. Freda, M.D.; Frank Weiner, M.D.; Henry Mitchell, M.D.; Ralph R. Brown, M.D.; H. Arnold Muller, M.D.

Civ. A. No. 81-1091.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

April 27, 1983.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ralph H. Smith, III, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Larry A. Silverman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for all defendants except Muller.

Alton P. Arnold, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Pittsburgh, Pa., for Com. of Pa.

OPINION

MANSMANN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings¹ filed by Defendant Indiana Hospital and certain Defendant physicians and administrators² at Indiana Hospital ("Hospital Defendants").Also before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Dr. H. Arnold Muller("Dr. Muller").³PlaintiffDr. Ralph J. Miller brought this action as a result of Indiana Hospital's refusal to accept or consider his application for medical staff privileges.For the reasons set forth below, we are granting Defendants' Motions in part and are reserving judgment on the remainder.

THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS

A Motion to Dismiss filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)⁴ and a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c)⁵ may, to a certain extent, be used interchangeably as pretrial challenges to an opponent's claim.McIntosh v. Garofalo,367 F.Supp. 501, 503(W.D. Pa.1973).See alsoC. Wright & A. Miller, 5 Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1369, at 698(1969).⁶

Theoretically, a Rule 12(b) motion focuses on the defects in Plaintiff's claim for relief and does not seek to determine the merits of the dispute.⁷Id.A Rule 12(c) motion, on the other hand, does seek to determine the substantive merits of the controversy.Id.As a practical matter, however, many of the same standards are applicable to both types of motions.

Both a Rule 12(b) motion and a 12(c) motion may be used to assert lack of subject matter jurisdiction or to assert the failure of Plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6);12(h)(2) and (3).⁸See alsoCardio-Medical Assoc. v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center,536 F.Supp. 1065(E.D.Pa.1982);C. Wright and A. Miller, supra at 688.The same standards will apply to the resolution of each of these challenges regardless of which type of motion is used.SeeTomarkin v. Ward,534 F.Supp. 1224, 1228 n. 1(S.D.N.Y.1982);Warner Co. v. Brann & Stuart Co.,198 F.Supp. 634(E.D. Pa.1961).See alsoC. Wright and A. Miller, supra at 688.

Dismissal on jurisdictional grounds and for failure to state a claim are analytically distinct, implicating different legal principles and different burdens of proof.Johnsrud v. Carter,620 F.2d 29, 32(3d Cir.1980).The former involves the right to be heard in court while the latter is a disposition of the case on the merits.Id. at 33.

Motions which challenge subject matter jurisdiction may simply attack the facial sufficiency of the Complaint or they may attack the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.⁹Mortensen v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n,549 F.2d 884, 891(3d Cir.1977).In a facial attack, the Court must take the allegations of the Complaint as true.¹⁰Id.Where, however, the Motion creates a factual issue regarding subject matter jurisdiction, "`no presumptive truthfulness attaches to Plaintiff's allegations and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of the jurisdictional claims.Moreover, the Plaintiff will have the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist.'"¹¹Enka B.V. of Arnhem, Holland v. E.I. DuPont Nemours & Co.,519 F.Supp. 356, 359(D.Del.1981), quotingMortensen, supra at 891.

Where a motion asserts the failure of Plaintiff to state a claim, the burden is on the moving party.SeeJohnsrud v. Carter, supra at 33.The Plaintiff is afforded the safeguard of having all of his allegations taken as true and all inferences which are favorable to him will be drawn.Society Hill Civic Ass'n v. Harris,632 F.2d 1045, 1054(3d Cir.1980);Bryson v. Brand Insulations, Inc.,621 F.2d 556, 559(3d Cir.1980);Mortensen, supra at 891.If the court considers matters outside of the pleadings, the motion is transformed into a Rule 56Motion for Summary Judgment.SeeFed.R. Civ.P. 12(b) and 12(c).¹²

Specifically with regard to a Rule 12(c) motion, we note the following:

Under the orthodox rule, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be sustained by the undisputed facts appearing in all the pleadings, supplemented by any facts of which the court will take judicial notice.For the purposes of the motion, all well-pleaded material allegations of the opposing party's pleading are to be taken as true, and all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false.Conclusions of law are not deemed admitted.Judgment on the pleadings may be granted only if, on the facts as so admitted, the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment.

536 F.Supp. at 1070, quoting 2A Moore's Federal Practice¶ 12.15, at 2343-44(1981)(footnotes omitted).

As a general rule, courts do not favor the summary disposition of cases on their merits.Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that "a complaint should not be dismissed ... unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80(1957).Nevertheless, in an appropriate case, an early disposition may save the parties needless and often considerable time and expense which otherwise would be incurred during discovery and trial.At minimum, a partial disposition of the case at any early stage will refine the issues which remain for later resolution.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

With the above standards in mind, the facts may be summarized as follows:

Plaintiff is a physician and surgeon duly licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.He is a Board-certified urologist.¹³Plaintiff was a member of Indiana Hospital's medical staff for approximately 19 years.He remains a resident of Indiana County, Pennsylvania.

Defendant Indiana Hospital is a general hospital and a non-profit corporation.It is located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania and is the only general hospital in that county.¹⁴

The 24 individual Hospital Defendants are or were administrators or physicians at the Hospital.Twenty of these Defendants are or were members of the Hospital's Governing Board or the Executive Committee of the medical staff during the events in question.One of these Defendants, William R. McMillen, is or was a Commissioner of Indiana County as well.

Defendant Dr. Muller is the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health with offices in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff was first granted staff privileges at Indiana Hospital in 1958.Every subsequent year he applied for and was granted staff privileges for a period of one year.¹⁵

In 1974 and 1975, Plaintiff became active in the design and creation of the Medical Center.¹⁶Further, Plaintiff openly criticized certain conditions at the Hospital.¹⁷Those conditions allegedly went unremedied.

According to Plaintiff, the Hospital and certain individual Hospital Defendants objected strenuously to the creation of the Medical Center and to Plaintiff's criticism of Hospital conditions.¹⁸

In February 1977, a patient who had been under Plaintiff's care died at the Hospital.¹⁹One of the members of the medical staff's Executive Committee, who is a Defendant here, sent a report to the president of the medical staff stating that Plaintiff had rendered unacceptable care to the deceased patient.He later sent another letter to the Executive Committee, citing additional instances of inadequate care rendered by Plaintiff and requesting that Plaintiff's staff privileges be suspended.The Executive Committee held an informal meeting which Plaintiff attended.Plaintiff, however, refused to discuss the allegations against him and abruptly left the meeting.

In March 1977, the Executive Committee notified Plaintiff in writing that it intended to recommend to the Hospital's Board of Directors that Plaintiff's active staff privileges be revoked.The Executive Committee, through its hearing committee, held a hearing at which Plaintiff was represented by counsel and had the opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses.The hearing committee recommended the revocation of Plaintiff's staff privileges.The Executive Committee adopted the recommendation and Plaintiff appealed to the Hospital's Board of Directors.After another adversary hearing, a committee of four directors affirmed the Executive Committee's decision and the full Board adopted their recommendation.

In October 1977, Plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction ex parte from the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, preventing the revocation of his privileges.This injunction was dissolved in February 1978 and a request for a permanent injunction was denied in June 1978.

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his request to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.In April 1980, that court affirmed the lower court's decree, finding that the charges against Plaintiff were supported by "sufficient...