Regualos v. Community Hosp., Docket No. 74257
| Decision Date | 01 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 74257 |
| Citation | 364 N.W.2d 723,140 Mich.App. 455 |
| Parties | Felipe H. REGUALOS, Jr., M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Christopher C. Higgins, M.D., Gregory B. Purchase, M.D., John R. Young, M.D., Muhammad Rafi, M.D., Patrick S. Ferazzi, M.D., John B. Huntington, M.D., C.D. Stephenson, M.D., Sherwood B. Winslow, M.D., William D. Walters, M.D., Richard Kranz, M.D., C.E. Power, M.D., Chihsing Chen, M.D., Walter J. Bell, James T. Leigh and Malcomb Young, M.D., Defendants-Appellees. 140 Mich.App. 455, 364 N.W.2d 723 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[140 MICHAPP 457] Felipe H. Regualos, Jr., Battle Creek, in pro. per.
[140 MICHAPP 458] Warner, Norcross & Judd, by Thomas J. McNamara, Grand Rapids, for defendants-appellees.
Before R.B. BURNS, P.J., and HOLBROOK and DENEWETH *, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in defendants' favor. We affirm.
Plaintiff is a physician specializing in internal medicine and is on the staff of defendant hospital. In December, 1978, plaintiff requested the privilege of interpreting pulmonary function tests on his patients at the hospital. The hospital's executive committee granted his request with the provision that a preceptor monitor plaintiff's performance and report to the committee. Defendant Dr. Chihsing Chen was appointed preceptor.
Chen reviewed 79 pulmonary function tests performed by plaintiff and subsequently sent a letter to the committee opining that plaintiff was incompetent to properly interpret the tests. In the letter, Chen stated that plaintiff misinterpreted 24 of the 79 tests which he had analyzed.
On June 17, 1980, the executive committee considered Chen's letter and terminated plaintiff's pulmonary function privileges. The hospital's board of trustees approved this action and, pursuant to hospital procedures, a summary of the minutes of the June 17, 1980, meeting of the executive committee was distributed to hospital personnel. The minutes stated that a physician's privileges to interpret pulmonary function tests had been terminated but did not mention plaintiff's name.
Plaintiff was notified of the termination of his privileges and on July 3, 1980, he sent a letter to [140 MICHAPP 459] the hospital administrator requesting a hearing as provided by the hospital bylaws. Although the request was not timely, plaintiff was notified on August 6, 1980, that he would be granted a hearing.
At the hearing held August 25, 1980, plaintiff questioned the denial and delay of his request for a review of Dr. Chen's evaluation of his performance. The three-member hearing board decided to retain two outside physicians to review Chen's conclusions.
Subsequently, the reports of the reviewing physicians revealed that in many instances plaintiff did not interpret the pulmonary function tests correctly. Plaintiff did not attend the committee's review of these outside evaluations.
On October 21, 1980, the reports of the committee concerning termination of plaintiff's pulmonary-test interpretation privileges were read at a meeting of the executive committee. After discussion, the committee decided that plaintiff could reapply for privileges when he demonstrated further education in the area and completed another review period under the observation of a preceptor.
Pursuant to the hospital bylaws, plaintiff then appealed to the appellate review committee of the hospital. At the November 12, 1980, hearing, the committee discussed each of the 32 points raised by plaintiff and reviewed those relevant to the proceedings. Plaintiff was then excused. The committee doctors then reviewed the pulmonary function reports presented by Dr. Chen and the outside physicians, Drs. Dircks and Grambau. The portion of the discussion in which the committee reviewed the pulmonary function tests was not transcribed due to a tape recorder malfunction. The appellate committee decided that the recommendations and [140 MICHAPP 460] decision made against plaintiff were justified, and not arbitrary or capricious, and that plaintiff had been provided due process. Plaintiff appealed the decision of the appellate review committee to the executive committee of the board of trustees. The trustees unanimously approved the previous decisions. Plaintiff then filed the instant action on May 27, 1981.
The primary thrust of defendants' argument in support of their summary judgment motion was that there was no evidence in the record that defendants had acted with malice. Therefore, defendants argued, under M.C.L. Sec. 331.531; M.S.A. Sec. 14.57(21), they were immune from liability as participants in a medical peer review process. Defendants attached affidavits to their motion in which they stated that they relied in good faith upon the findings of Drs. Chen, Dircks and Grambau.
The trial court agreed that there was no evidence that defendants had acted with malice against plaintiff. The court also found that plaintiff had been afforded his right to fundamental fairness as provided by the hospital bylaws, rules and regulations. Accordingly, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in a written opinion.
Plaintiff then requested that he be allowed to conduct further discovery. After a hearing, the trial court denied plaintiff's request for further discovery and entered its order of summary judgment.
Plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the decision by the governing body of defendant hospital to terminate plaintiff's privilege to interpret pulmonary function tests was not [140 MICHAPP 461] subject to judicial review. After reviewing the pleadings, affidavits and the applicable hospital bylaws, the trial court reached its conclusion based on this Court's decision in Hoffman v. Garden City Hospital-Osteopathic, 115 Mich.App. 773, 321 N.W.2d 810 (1982). In Hoffman, the defendant, Garden City Hospital, had received Hill-Burton funds from the federal government and federal public works accelerated program funds. The hospital was a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable institution with Medicare and Medicaid patients making up approximately one-third of the total patient population. The Hoffman plaintiffs brought suit after they had been denied hospital staff privileges, claiming that the hospital's decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and that it was the fulfillment of a conspiracy to protect the financial interests of the individual staff members. This Court found that Garden City Hospital was a private hospital and held that the decisions of governing bodies of private hospitals are not subject to judicial review. 115 Mich.App. 778-779, 321 N.W.2d 810.
Plaintiff here does not assert that defendant hospital is a public institution but argues that it is "quasi-public" and, therefore, it should be subject to more stringent due process standards than a private hospital. Plaintiff urges us to find that defendant has a quasi-public status on facts that are indistinguishable from the position of the defendant in Hoffman. Receipt of federal monies and acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid patients does not transform a nonprofit corporation into a public institution. We find no error in the trial court's decision on this issue.
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in [140 MICHAPP 462] finding that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 331.531; M.S.A. Sec. 14.57(21). 1 That statute grants a qualified immunity to persons engaged in the medical staff peer review process. The immunity does not apply to a person, organization or entity that acts with malice.
The trial court found that the allegations of malice contained in plaintiff's complaint were "mere conclusions" and that plaintiff had not alleged facts showing actual malice on the part of defendants. The allegations made by plaintiff are as follows:
Review of these allegations and the record makes it apparent that plaintiff has not submitted clear and convincing proof necessary to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning the existence of actual malice. See Lins v. Evening News Ass'n, 129 Mich.App. 419, 433-434, 342 N.W.2d 573 (1983).
In fact, the record reveals that the physicians responsible for reviewing plaintiff's case in the intrahospital proceedings fair-mindedly sought to assess plaintiff's competency. For example, when the doctors at plaintiff's initial hearing felt that they did not have sufficient expertise to evaluate plaintiff's work, they recruited outside pulmonary experts to analyze the tests. It was also established that the meeting minutes containing the statement regarding termination of plaintiff's privilege was distributed according to normal hospital procedure and did not contain plaintiff's name. From these facts, we ascertain no indication of actual malice and affirm the trial court's finding.
Our resolution of this issue obviates the need to address p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derderian v. GENESYS HEALTH SYS., Docket No. 245339
...review. Hoffman v. Garden City Hosp.-Osteopathic, 115 Mich.App. 773, 778-779, 321 N.W.2d 810 (1982); Regualos v. Community Hosp., 140 Mich.App. 455, 461, 364 N.W.2d 723 (1985). This doctrine does not arise from a limitation on the court's authority, but, in part, from the distinction betwee......
-
Feyz v. Mercy Memorial Hosp.
...supra at 777, 321 N.W.2d 810. 35. Id. at 778, 779, 321 N.W.2d 810, citing Shulman, supra. 36. See Regualos v. Community Hosp., 140 Mich.App. 455, 460-461, 364 N.W.2d 723 (1985); Veldhuis v Central Michigan Community Hosp, supra; Dutka v. Sinai Hosp. of Detroit, 143 Mich.App. 170, 371 N.W.2d......
-
Feyz v. MERCY MEM. HOSP.
...no clear and convincing proof of malice can be found in Plaintiff's brief. Furthermore, according to both Regualos v. Community Hos., 364 N.W.2d 723, 726 [140 Mich.App. 455 (1985)], and Hoffman v. Garden City Hospital — Osteopathic, 321 N.W.2d 810 [115 Mich.App. 773 (1982)], decisions of go......
-
Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc.
...fails to come forward with any specific rebuttal evidence establishing malice or lack of good faith. Regualos v. Community Hospital, 140 Mich.App. 455, 364 N.W.2d 723, 727 (1985). (iii) Definitional Basis for Statutory Qualifications on Immunity: As noted, the same factors that render the c......