Levy v. Clinton Mem’l Hosp.

Levy v. Clinton Mem’l Hosp., No. CA2007-05-027 (Ohio
App. Dec. 28, 2007)

The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the decision
of the trial court granting declaratory relief in favor of a hospital and
held that the hospital could grant exclusive privileges to its employees
to practice medical specialties at the hospital’s cancer center while excluding
other credentialed specialists. The court also concluded that the bylaws
of the hospital did not create a contract between the hospital and physicians
holding privileges at the hospital. The court’s final ruling instructed
that the physicians were not entitled to a hearing under the hospital’s
bylaws because any adverse effect on the physician’s privileges due to
the granting of exclusive privileges to other physicians was not a result
of "professional concerns."

The hospital,
with the advice of a consultant, opened a new cancer center with state-of-the-art
equipment used to deliver radiation therapy. It then entered into an employment
agreement with a physician for the provision of radiation oncology services.
The physician, by board resolution, was designated as the exclusive provider
of radiation oncology services at the cancer center. The hospital declined
to contract with several other physicians, under their proposed terms, who
already had privileges at the hospital. As a result of these circumstances,
the physicians brought suit. Noting the lower court’s finding that the hospital
made the decision to adopt a closed-staff policy after significant study
and preparation and with the purpose of implementing a holistic approach,
the court followed Ohio precedent and declined to intervene in the hospital’s
actions because there was no evidence of behavior that was "arbitrary,
capricious, contrary to public policy, or procedurally unfair." Additionally,
the court determined that the hospital’s bylaws did not constitute a contract
with the privileged physicians because there was no mutuality of obligation
since the hospital had no legally binding duties under the bylaws. Lastly,
it was decided that the physicians had no right of appeal under the hospital’s
bylaws because the bylaws only afford an appeal if an adverse effect on a
physician’s privileges is the result of "professional concerns." Here,
the adverse effect was a business decision and not one of "professional
concern." Thus,
the appeal process was not triggered.