Moss v. Albany Medical Center Hospital
| Decision Date | 30 March 1978 |
| Citation | 403 N.Y.S.2d 568,61 A.D.2d 545 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Gerald MOSS, Appellant, v. ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E. Stewart Jones, Troy (Arthur L. Rosen, Troy, of counsel), for appellant.
Poskanzer, Hessberg, Blumberg & Dolin, Albany (Nicholas J. Greisler, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREENBLOTT, STALEY, MIKOLL and HERLIHY, JJ.
Petitioner, a physician, appeals from the decision of the respondent hospital which denied his application for surgical staff privileges. Following petitioner's application, a three-member committee of respondent's department of surgery recommended unanimously that the application not be approved. The department of surgery also recommended that the application be disapproved and the Medical Board of the respondent voted to accept the recommendation of the department. The reason given for the disapproval of the application was that petitioner did "not possess a level of surgical competence which is a prerequisite for medical staff membership".
Petitioner then invoked his right to a hearing under the respondent's by-laws. A hearing committee conducted a hearing and affirmed the determination of the Medical Board. Upon a further appeal to the respondent's Board of Governors, the determination was again affirmed. Petitioner then filed a complaint with the Public Health Council, pursuant to section 2801-b of the Public Health Law, alleging that respondent committed an improper practice in denying his application for staff privileges. The Council found no cause to credit the claim since respondent's action related to "standards of patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character and competency of the individual". This proceeding followed.
At common law, absent a contractual obligation to the contrary, denial of staff privileges by a private hospital constituted no legal wrong (Leider v. Beth Israel Hosp. Assn., 11 N.Y.2d 205, 208-209, 227 N.Y.S.2d 900, 901, 182 N.E.2d 393, 394; Halberstadt v. Kissane, 31 A.D.2d 568, 294 N.Y.S.2d 841). One exception evolved: review could be had if economic necessity and a hospital's monopoly power were proven (Matter of Salter v. New York State Psychological Assn., 14 N.Y.2d 100, 106-107, 248 N.Y.S.2d 867, 871-872, 198 N.E.2d 250, 252-253). In the case at bar, petitioner has staff privileges at three area hospitals. We are not convinced by petitioner's allegations of monopoly power or economic necessity.
In 1972, the Legislature enacted section 2801-b of the Public Health Law (L.1972, ch. 284, § 1), designed to limit the common law rule that immunized a private hospital's actions from judicial scrutiny (Matter of Fritz v. Huntington Hosp., 39 N.Y.2d 339, 345, 384 N.Y.S.2d 92, 96, 348 N.E.2d 547, 552). Subdivision 1 of section 2801-b of the Public Health Law provides, in relevant part, that "(i)t shall be an improper practice for the governing body of a hospital to * * * withhold from a physician * * * staff membership or professional privileges in a hospital * * * without stating the reasons therefor, or if the reasons stated are unrelated to standards of patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character or competency of the applicant." Subdivision 2 allows a person aggrieved by an improper practice to file a complaint with the Public Health Council. The Public Health Council must investigate the complaint and determine whether "cause exists for crediting the allegations of the complaint" ( § 2801-b, subd. 3). Section 2801-c gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to enjoin violations or threatened violations of any provisions of article 28.
Since petitioner's only basis for judicial review is injunctive relief under section 2801-c, we must convert this article 78 proceeding to an action for an injunction pursuant to our powers under subdivision (c) of CPLR 103 (Matter of Fritz v. Huntington Hosp., supra, p. 347, 384 N.Y.S.2d p. 97, 348 N.E.2d p. 553). The court's scope of review in an action for an injunction was clearly laid out in Fried v. Straussman (41 N.Y.2d 376, 393 N.Y.S.2d 334, 361 N.E.2d 984). The court limits itself to:
a determination whether the purported grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chalasani v. Neuman
...basis for judicial review is injunctive relief under section 2801-c" of the Public Health Law (Matter of Moss v. Albany Med. Center Hosp., 61 A.D.2d 545, 548, 403 N.Y.S.2d 568 [GREENBLOTT, J.]; see Cohoes Hosp. v. Health Dept., 48 N.Y.2d 583, 588, 424 N.Y.S.2d 110, 399 N.E.2d 1132; Guibor v......
-
Fischer v. Nyack Hosp.
...593, 593, 560 N.Y.S.2d 878 [1990], lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 805, 568 N.Y.S.2d 913, 571 N.E.2d 83 [1991] ; Matter of Moss v. Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 61 A.D.2d 545, 548, 403 N.Y.S.2d 568 [1978] ; see generally Mason v. Cent. Suffolk Hosp., 3 N.Y.3d 343, 348, 786 N.Y.S.2d 413, 819 N.E.2d 1029 [200......
-
Rockland Physician Associates, PC v. Grodin, 84 Civ. 8586.
...set forth in the statute...." Fried v. Straussman, supra, 393 N.Y.S.2d at 338, 361 N.E.2d at 988; see Moss v. Albany Medical Center, 61 A.D.2d 545, 403 N.Y.S.2d 568 (App.Div.1978). II. Irreparable Plaintiffs argue that they will be irreparably harmed if they are not permitted to practice at......
-
Cohoes Memorial Hospital v. Department of Health
...been rendered (Matter of Fritz v. Huntington Hosp., 39 N.Y.2d 339, 384 N.Y.S.2d 92, 348 N.E.2d 547, Supra; Matter of Moss v. Albany Med. Center Hosp., 61 A.D.2d 545, 403 N.Y.S.2d 568; Yates v. Cohoes Mem. Hosp., 64 A.D.2d 726, 406 N.Y.S.2d 893). 2 None treats the predicament of a hospital a......