Sams v. Ohio Valley General Hospital Association, No. 12983.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: HAYNSWORTH, , and BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit
• Citation: 413 F.2d 826
• Parties: James E. SAMS, Jack L. Paradise, and Daniel J. Birmingham, Appellants, v. OHIO VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, et al., Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 12983.
• Decision Date: 18 July 1969

413 F.2d 826 (1969)

James E. SAMS, Jack L. Paradise, and Daniel J. Birmingham, Appellants,
v.
OHIO VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 12983.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 9, 1969.

Decided July 18, 1969.

413 F.2d 827

Jeremy C. McCamic, Wheeling, W. Va., (McCamic & McCamic, Wheeling, W. Va., on the brief) for appellants.

John D. Phillips and D. Paul Camilletti, Wheeling, W. Va., (Chester R. Hubbard, II, Wheeling, W. Va., on the brief) for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge:

Appellants are three physicians who have been refused staff appointments and enjoyment of privileges in two hospitals in Wheeling, Ohio County, West Virginia, under a common rule:

"Except under extraordinary circumstances, physicians having their offices and practice outside of Ohio County shall not be eligible for staff appointment or hospital privileges."

The two institutions are the Ohio Valley General Hospital and the Wheeling Hospital. With their respective administrators individually, they were sued in the District Court by the appellants for injunction of this exclusion.

The Court dismissed, rejecting plaintiffs' premise of the suit — denial of the equal protection assured by the 14th Amendment¹ — and they appeal. The record requires us to reverse.

A constitutional right of admission to the staff and hospital privileges is disavowed by the plaintiffs. They claim only that the rule in suit is unjustly discriminative, for without semblance of reason for the differentiation, these hospitals accord full participation to doctors with offices and practices within Ohio County but refuse the same entitlement to those not so classifiable. We find the contention sound, a justified invocation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection safeguards.

The facts are virtually agreed. Ohio Valley General and Wheeling are privately operated, non-profit hospitals, licensed by the State of West Virginia and governed by lay boards. Located in the city of Wheeling, Ohio County, they serve an area population of over 250,000, encompassing six counties besides Ohio County. One is Green located in Pennsylvania, three more are Jefferson, Belmont and Monroe lying in a north and south tier in Ohio on the west bank of the Ohio River, and the remaining two are Marshall and Brooke, West Virginia counties, in line with Ohio County along the east bank of the River, opposite the Ohio counties.

There are a total of six hospitals in the area, but Ohio Valley General and the Wheeling Hospital are the only ones in Ohio County. None of the other four have the sophisticated facilities found at these two. Ohio Valley General is the largest in the service area. Residents of Ohio County, West Virginia, constitute between 44 and 49% of the patient population in both hospitals.

Ohio Valley General Hospital applied for and received $3,352,755 of Federal moneys known as Hill-Burton funds to assist the construction of a new addition at a total cost of $9,863,758. A new wing at Wheeling Hospital costing $1,264,696 was paid for with the use of $625,976 in similar funds. In both instances, private contributions from Ohio County accounted for an appreciable part of the remainder of the cost.

The Hill-Burton Act² provides Federal grants to State agencies to assist in

413 F.2d 828

establishing or enlarging hospital facilities. Under it, a participating State must present a statewide plan to the Surgeon General of the United States comporting with the directives of the act and his regulations. This West Virginia did, in full acceptance of the Federal act. Recipients of Hill-Burton funds must also comply with minimum standards of maintenance and operation, including requisites for staff membership; the State must see to their obedience

Each of the appellant physicians is a certified specialist, licensed by the State of West Virginia with offices in Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, which is immediately opposite Wheeling on the river. Dr. Paradise, a pediatrician, and Dr. Birmingham, a surgeon, reside in Ohio; Dr. Sams, an obstetrician and gynecologist, in West Virginia within Ohio County. With other physicians and surgeons they are members of J. L. Paradise, M. D. & Associates, Bellaire Medical Group, Inc., a professional corporation chartered in Ohio. It is operated on a prepayment plan, with compensation fixed by an annual or monthly charge rather than the traditional per-service fee. With three clinics, their patient lists cover almost the identical geographical range of the defendant hospitals. However, the plaintiffs are not equipped with facilities for specialization matching those of the hospitals. Confessedly, the rule in controversy has been and is hurtful to appellants' practice.

Substantial Federal moneys invited and flowing into the defendant hospitals under the Hill-Burton Act entail, in return, obligations of observance of Federal constitutional mandates. Disregard of them is State action, for the act trusts the State to maintain a fair and just governance of these hospitals accepting the aid of the legislation. These are axioms of ready verification. Vide: Smith v. Hampton Training School for Nurses, 360 F.2d 577 (4 Cir. 1964); Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, supra, 323 F.2d 959 (4 Cir. 1963), cert den. 376 U.S. 938, 84 S. Ct. 793. While no race considerations exist here as were present in the decisions just cited, the constitutional principles there announced apply in full strength to the non-racial issues of this case.

The District Judge here demonstrated full and thorough awareness of these precepts. The only departure between his conclusion and ours is in respect to the reasonableness of the litigated rule. He saw it acceptable in law; we do not. Altogether correctly, his premise was that the Equal Protection Clause does not censure a State for allowing privileges to one group of persons while declining them to others, where the segregation of benefits has a reasonable purpose and embodies a reasonable means of achievement. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-26, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 465, 77 S. Ct. 1344, 1 L.Ed.2d 1485 (1957). This is familiar law, too commonplace to call for more than repetition of the Chief Justice's terse and pat etching of it in McGowan, supra:

"Although no precise formula has been developed, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State\'s objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some

413 F.2d...