Rosenberg v. Holy Redeemer Hosp.
Decision Date | 11 March 1986 |
Citation | 506 A.2d 408,351 Pa.Super. 399 |
Parties | Dr. Steven ROSENBERG, Appellant, v. HOLY REDEEMER HOSPITAL and Dr. John A. Jakabcin. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
H. David Kraut, Lansdale, for appellant.
Michael C. Hemsley, Philadelphia, for Holy Redeemer, appellee.
Stephen C. Baker, Philadelphia, for Jakabcin, appellee.
Before ROWLEY, DEL SOLE and BECK, JJ.
Dr. Steven Rosenberg appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of defendant Holy Redeemer Hospital. In the original equity action filed by Dr. Rosenberg he sought injunctive relief from the hospital's denial of his application for staff privileges.
Our scope of review in this matter is limited to abuse of discretion of the trial court. After examining the ample record and Judge Brody's excellent opinion, we affirm. Before discussing the substance of the case, however, we must first determine whether this appeal is properly before the Superior Court.
Title 42 Pa.C.S.A. 762 states in relevant part:
(a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas in the following cases:
* * *
* * *
(5) Certain private corporation matters.--(i) All actions or proceedings relating to corporations not-for-profit arising under Title 15 ( ) ...
(ii) All actions or proceedings otherwise involving the corporate affairs of any corporation not-for-profit subject to Title 15 or the affairs of the members, security holders, directors, officers, or employees or agents thereof, as such.
Holy Redeemer Hospital is a private corporation not-for-profit. Therefore, a controversy to which it is a party could properly have been appealed to the Commonwealth Court or could be transferred thereto by the Superior Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 705; Karpe v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 315 Pa.Super. 185, 461 A.2d 859 (1983).
We note, however, that neither party has objected to the appeal before this court. We are therefore invested with jurisdiction to decide the matter by virtue of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 704.
§ 704. Waiver of objections to jurisdiction
(a) General rule.--The failure of an appellee to file an objection to the jurisdiction of an appellate court within such time as may be specified by general rule, shall, unless the appellate court otherwise orders, operate to perfect the appellate jurisdiction of such appellate court, notwithstanding any provision of this title, or of any general rule adopted pursuant to section 503 ( ), vesting jurisdiction of such appeal in another appellate court.
Having decided the jurisdictional question, we turn to the substance of the case. We find that appellant's arguments have been thoroughly discussed in the well reasoned opinion authored by Judge Anita Brody. We therefore adopt as our own that portion of Judge Brody's opinion which follows.
A motion for summary judgment should be granted only where the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As stated by the Superior Court:
Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co. v. Nenna & Frain, Inc., 320 Pa.Super. 291, 467 A.2d 330 (1983), citing Thompson Coal Company v. Pike Coal Company, 488 Pa. 198, 412 A.2d 466 (1979).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zummo v. Zummo
... ... ; Heller, Talking To Your Children About God, supra, at 141-56; Rosenberg, Meehan & Payne, Happily Intermarried, supra, at 132-143; Cowan & Cowan, ... granted a Christian parent custody or visitation on all Christian holy days, but denied similar custody or visitation to the other parent on his ... ...
-
Tulp v. Educ. Comm'n for Foreign Med. Graduates
...law in holding that "the due process clause applies only to state action and not to private conduct." Rosenberg v. Holy Redeemer Hosp. , 351 Pa.Super. 399, 506 A.2d 408, 410 (1986) (citing Adler v. Montefiore Hosp. Ass'n of W. Pa. , 453 Pa. 60, 311 A.2d 634, 639 (1973) ). Accordingly, to th......
-
Savage v. Savage
...motion was merely an instance of "housekeeping" and was proper under Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(1). See also Rosenberg v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 351 Pa.Super. 399, 506 A.2d 408, 414 (1986). ¶ 52 Conversely, we believe that the trial court improperly approved and entered the Master's recommendation ......
-
Schaeffer v. Frey
...A.2d 1231, 1235 (1986), transferred to, Thorn v. Newman, 113 Pa.Commw. 642, 538 A.2d 105 (1988); Rosenberg v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 351 Pa.Super. 399, 401-04, 506 A.2d 408, 409-10 (1986), appeal denied, 514 Pa. 643, 523 A.2d 1132 (1986); Schultz v. City of Phila., 314 Pa.Super. 194, 197, ......