Alvarez v. Eden Township Hospital District

SHOEMAKER, J.

Plaintiff brought this action for an injunction to restrain defendant Eden Township Hospital District from denying her admission to Eden Hospital as a patient of Dr. Ben Rosner, and from denying said doctor access to the hospital to attend her. Based on her complaint, plaintiff obtained an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued pending the trial of the action and at the hearing thereon it was established that Dr. Rosner is a licensed physician and surgeon of the State of California, and admittedly is competent in the technical or scientific sense by virtue of his education, training and experience as a general surgeon. The doctor is no stranger to litigation of this character, for in 1958 the medical staff of the defendant hospital rejected his application for membership thereon, and on December 1, 1959, he renewed his application on which a public hearing was held by the defendant hospital’s board of directors, who, on March 2, 1960, denied the application on the ground that the doctor was “temperamentally unsuitable for hospital practice,’’ On March 24,

[311]

1960, the hoard vacated its previous finding of fact and adopted other findings, one of which set forth that “Ben Rosner, M. D. is not competent in his field by reason of temperamental unsuitability for hospital staff practice, . . . that Ben Rosner, M. D.’s reputation among his colleagues is not good, and that he is hence not worthy in character,” and reaffirmed its previous decision which denied him membership on the medical staff.

Defendant hospital is a public hospital and, acting under section 32125 of the Health and Safety Code, adopted by-laws and rules and regulations to

govern its

operation. Those pertinent to our consideration provide (1) “[p]atients in the hospital may only be attended or treated by members of the Medical Staff.” (Preamble to the by-laws); (2) “. . . Before any major operation is started and during such procedure, there must be present in the operating room, in addition to the surgeon, another man fully qualified to carry on the work. ’ ’ (Rule 19.)

Plaintiff became ill in March of 1960. Her illness, while claimed to be urgent and immediate major surgery indicated, did not involve an emergency. She applied for admission to defendant hospital as a patient of Dr. Rosner on April 5 and April 18, 1960, and on each occasion was advised that she could be admitted to the hospital, but that Dr. Rosner could not be her attending physician, inasmuch as practice in the hospital was limited to members of the medical staff. Plaintiff insisted that she needed an operation, that she wanted Dr. Rosner to perform it as she had faith in no other doctor, and that the defendant hospital as a public institution had no right to exclude her and her desired surgeon. In view of this attitude, the defendant hospital refused admission and after the foregoing hearing the trial court entered its judgment denying the preliminary injunction, and ordering judgment for defendants, from which judgment plaintiff now appeals.