Richardson v. St. John's Mercy Hosp., 47632

• Decision Date: 12 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 47632,47632
• Parties: William R. RICHARDSON, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ST. JOHN'S MERCY HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 200

674 S.W.2d 200

William R. RICHARDSON, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ST. JOHN'S MERCY HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 47632.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division One.

June 12, 1984.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied

July 12, 1984.

Application to Transfer Denied

Sept. 11, 1984.

John R. O'Connor, Washington, Edward K. Fehlig, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.

Steven P. Kuenzel, Washington, for plaintiff-respondent.

Lori J. Levine, Gerald M. Sill, Jefferson City, for amicus curiae.

DONALD L. MANFORD, Special Judge.

This is a direct appeal from a judgment in the form of an order enjoining appellant-hospital from restricting respondent's privileges regarding major surgery. The judgment is reversed.

Respondent, William R. Richardson, M.D. (hereinafter Dr. Richardson) is a physician with staff privileges with appellant, St. John's Mercy Hospital (hereinafter St. John's), which is located in Washington, Missouri. St. John's is a private not-for-profit corporation, which receives substantial public money, including Hill-Burton funds and other private donations.

On June 3, 1983, St. John's required Dr. Richardson to have preoperative consultation and intraoperative assistance on all major abdominal cases. Dr. Richardson filed this action in the Gasconade County Circuit Court, which in turn issued an injunction permanently enjoining St. John's from restraining the doctor's surgical privileges. St. John's then presented this appeal.

The substantive issues surrounding the decision reached by St. John's which ultimately led to this appeal are neither reached nor ruled in this opinion because of the threshold issue which is taken up and ruled. This threshold issue is whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the administrative decision of St. John's to restrict the surgical privileges of Dr. Richardson.

This court holds that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear the petition of Dr. Richardson and to enjoin St. John's.

It has been generally held in Missouri that the exclusion of a physician or surgeon from practicing in a private hospital is a matter which rests in the discretion of the managing authorities. Cowan v. Gibson, 392 S.W.2d 307, 308 (Mo.1965); Dillard v. Rowland, 520 S.W.2d 81, 92 (Mo.App.1974). Cowan and Dillard, however, do not entirely dispose of the instant case. Cowan states the general rule but goes on to explain an exception to it and allows a physician to sue other physicians for conspiracy. Cowan, unlike the instant case, involved a doctor suing another doctor and it did not involve a suit by a doctor against a hospital. Nor was the issue decided in Dillard, which involved a suit against a hospital which operated under a charitable public trust. The court in Dillard stated that "[i]f Barnes is to be considered a private hospital, which it would seem to be, the law is clear that the exclusion of a physician or surgeon from practicing in such a hospital is a matter which rests in the discretion of the managing authorities." Dillard at 92 (emphasis added). The court goes on to say that if because of public funding and government regulation they were to conclude that the hospital was of a public nature, then the plaintiff might have standing to invoke the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, that issue did not have to be decided since plaintiff in that case had declined the hearing on his claim, and whatever rights to due process he might have had were deemed to be waived.

An Eighth Circuit case, Briscoe v. Bock, 540 F.2d 392 (8th Cir.1976), involves facts very similar to the instant case. Briscoe involved a suit against Deaconess Hospital, a private hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. Deaconess is a Missouri nonprofit corporation, it is tax exempt, subject to extensive state regulation, as are all private hospitals in the state, and it receives substantial funds from the Hill-Burton Act. Id. at 394. The Eighth Circuit held that the private hospital's dismissal of a physician did not constitute state action under ...