State ex rel. Sams v. Ohio Val. General Hospital Ass'n

Citation140 S.E.2d 457,149 W.Va. 229
Decision Date23 February 1965
Docket NumberNo. 12361,12361
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
PartiesSTATE ex rel. James E. SAMS v. OHIO VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, etc.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The legal status of a hospital, that is, whether it is a public or private entity, is determined by the circumstances of each case in which that question is raised.

2. When a hospital is created by the voluntary agreement of private individuals and is managed and governed by those selected by such individuals, it is a private hospital; and the fact that it is affected with a public interest, is granted charitable immunity and is exempt from the payment of real and personal property taxes does not transform it into a public hospital.

3. A nonprofit hospital, determined to be private, is not transformed into a public institution by its receipt of federal funds under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 291 et seq., known as the Hill-Burton Act.

4. The governing authorities of a private hospital, in the exercise of their discretion, have the absolute right to exclude licensed physicians from its medical staff and such action is not subject to judicial review.

5. 'To entitle one to a writ of mandamus, the party seeking the writ must show a clear legal right thereto and a corresponding duty on the respondent to perform the act demanded.' Point 4, Syllabus, State ex rel. Zagula et al. v. Grossi, Clerk et al., W.Va. .

McCamic & Tinker, Jeremy C. McCamic, Wheeling, for relator.

Chester R. Hubbard, John D. Phillips, Wheeling, for respondent.

CAPLAN, Judge.

In this original proceeding in mandamus the petitioner, James E. Sams, a physician and surgeon, seeks to compel the respondent, Ohio Valley General Hospital Association, to appoint him to the medical staff of the respondent hospital or, in the alternative, to afford him a hearing with respect to his application for staff membership and the refusal thereof. On July 13, 1964, a rule was granted by this Court returnable September 8, 1964. An extension was granted to October 6, 1964, and finally, for the purpose of taking evidence, the hearing date of this matter was continued to January 13, 1965. Depositions were taken on behalf of the parties and numerous exhibits were filed. On January 13, 1965, this matter was submitted for decision upon the petition, the answer and demurrer thereto, the depositions and exhibits, the reply to the answer, and upon the briefs and arguments of counsel.

The petitioner, James E. Sams, is a physician and surgeon duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of West Virginia. He is also licensed to practice his profession in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. In his deposition Doctor Sams testified that he received his degree in medicine from Tulane University in 1937; that as a general practitioner, he received a commission in the regular army in 1940; and that he remained in the army until 1962. During his army career he was a general practitioner until 1946, when he entered into training as a specialist in pediatrics and gynecology. Upon the completion of this speciality he served as the chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology in several army hospitals. In 1959 he was certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a specialist in that field. Doctor Sams retains this board certification at the present time. No question appears to exist in this proceeding as to his competency as a doctor or his qualification as a member of the medical profession.

Upon his retirement from the army in March, 1962, Doctor Sams established his residence in Wheeling and began to practice his profession in Bellaire, Ohio. He stated that, in addition to the respondent hospital, he has applied for staff privileges at the Wheeling Hospital in Wheeling, West Virginia, Reynolds Memorial Hospital in Glendale, West Virginia, and the City Hospital in Bellaire, Ohio, but that in each instance staff privileges have been refused. It was the refusal of such privileges by the respondent that gave rise to this proceeding.

By application dated February 13, 1963, the petitioner applied for appointment to the medicial staff of the respondent hospital. This application was considered and, by letter dated May 27, 1963, signed by M. B. Williams, M.D., Medical Director, the petitioner was informed that 'under our Medical Staff Bylaws, Rules and Regulations you are not eligible for appointment to our Medical Staff'. Further attempts to accomplish his aim being unsuccessful, the petitioner, on July, 7, 1964, instituted this proceeding.

The Ohio Valley General Hospital Association, the respondent herein, is a corporation created and organized under the laws of the State of West Virginia. As such it established and maintains and operates the hospital involved in this proceeding. The corporate charter states that it was organized 'exclusively for charitable, scientific and educational purposes as a not-for profit corporation'. The management of its affairs is vested in a board of trustees elected by the members of the association. The hospital maintained by the respondent corporation is operated from funds derived from fees charged for the care and hospitalization of patients, private charitable contributions and payments made by the state and county for the treatment of indigent patients. For the purpose of expanding its facilities the respondent has, on several occasions, applied for and received funds from the federal government under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 291 et seq., more commonly known as the Hill-Burton Act.

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Ohio Valley General Hospital is in fact a public hospital and that its action, questioned in this proceeding, is therefore subject to judicial control. In support of this position the petitioner relies principally on three factors. First, the respondent is affected with a public interest, its property being devoted to public use and subject to state licensing and regulation; second, it is a public charitable hospital by reason of its charitable immunity and exemption from the payment of real and personal property taxes; and, third, it has been a recipient of public monies under the provisions of the Hill-Burton Act.

The respondent, on the other hand, contends that the hospital which it operates is a private hospital and that matters concerning the appointment of the medical staff thereof are not subject to judicial review. It concludes therefrom that the petitioner has failed to show that he has been deprived of any established right which will be enforced by a writ of mandamus.

It is evident that the controlling question here is whether the respondent hospital is a private or a public hospital. If it is the former the respondent will prevail; if it is the latter the writ will be awarded, at least to the extent of affording the petitioner a hearing on the refusal of his application. Thus, we must first determine the legal status of the respondent hospital.

All hospitals available for public use may be divided into two categories, public hospitals and private hospitals. A public hospital has been defined as one owned, maintained and operated by a governmental unit and supported by governmental funds. A private hospital is one that is owned, operated and maintained by an individual or a corporation and in which no governmental agency has any voice in the management or control of the hospital property or in the formation of the rules for its government. Shulman v. Washington Hospital Center, D.C., 222 F.Supp. 59; Hughes v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 289 Ky. 123, 158 S.W.2d 159.

The distinction between public and private institutions was succinctly stated in Levin v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore City, 186 Md. 174, 46 A.2d 298, as follows: 'The essential difference between a public and a private corporation has long been recognized at common law. A public corporation is an instrumentality of the State, founded and owned by the State in the public interest, supported by public funds, and governed by managers deriving their authority from the State. Public institutions, such as State, county and city hospitals and asylums, are owned by the public and are devoted chiefly to public purposes. On the other hand, a corporation organized by permission of the Legislature, supported largely by voluntary contributions, and managed by officers and directors who are not representatives of the State or any political subdivision, is a private corporation, although engaged in charitable work or performing duties similar to those of public corporations. * * * So, a hospital, although operated solely for the benefit of the public and not for profit, is nevertheless a private institution if founded and maintained by a private corporation with authority to elect its own officers and directors. * * *'

The following statement found in 26 Am.Jur., Hospitals and Asylums, Section 3, is further determinative of the legal status of the respondent hospital: 'When created by the voluntary agreement of private individuals and managed and governed by those selected by the members thereof, they are private corporations, even though they are dedicated by the terms of their charters to purposes of general and public charity, * * *.'

In the instant proceeding the Ohio Valley General Hospital is owned, operated and maintained by the Ohio Valley General Hospital Association, a corporation created by the voluntary agreement of private individuals. The activities and affairs of the association are managed and governed by those selected by the members thereof. It is not operated with public funds, nor is it governed by managers deriving their authority from the state or any other public entity.

While it appears clear from the discussion and definitions contained in the foregoing authorities that the hospital involved here is a private hospital,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Ascherman v. San Francisco Medical Society
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 31, 1974
    ...273 N.Y.S.2d 601, 604--605, aff'd. (1968) 31 A.D.2d 568, 569, 294 N.Y.S.2d 841, 842; State ex rel. Sams v. Ohio Valley General Hospital Ass'n (1965) 149 W.Va. 229, 232--237, 140 S.E.2d 457, 460--462; and Khoury v. Community Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1962) 203 Va. 236, 244--245, 123 S.E.2d 53......
  • Allen, In re, s. 96-1464
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 6, 1997
    ...supported by public funds, and governed by managers deriving their authority from the State." State ex rel. Sams v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp. Ass'n, 149 W.Va. 229, 140 S.E.2d 457, 460 (1965). See also White v. Berryman, 187 W.Va. 323, 418 S.E.2d 917, 924 n. 15 (1992) (public corporations "are ......
  • Mahmoodian v. United Hosp. Center, Inc., 19504
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 25, 1991
    ...to judicial review and, if so, what is the scope of that review. In syllabus point 4 of State ex rel. Sams v. Ohio Valley General Hospital Association, 149 W.Va. 229, 140 S.E.2d 457 (1965), the Court held that "[t]he governing authorities of a private hospital, in the exercise of their disc......
  • Colorado Ass'n of Public Employees v. Board of Regents of University of Colorado, 89SA476
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 24, 1990
    ...341, 343 (1958); Levin v. Sinai Hosp. of Baltimore City, 186 Md. 174, 178, 46 A.2d 298, 300 (1946); State v. Ohio Valley General Hosp. Ass'n., 149 W.Va. 229, 233, 140 S.E.2d 457, 460 (1965). In Shulman v. Washington Hosp. Center, 222 F.Supp. 59, 61 (D.C.Cir.1963), the court The fact that a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Geography of Abortion Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 109-5, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...review; the decision of the hospital authorities in such matters is f‌inal.” (citing State ex rel. Sams v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp. Ass’n, 140 S.E.2d 457, 462 (W. Va. 1965); Schulman v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 222 F. Supp. 59, 63 (D.D.C. 1963); Khoury v. Cmty. Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 123 S.E.2d 533, 539......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT