Lin v. Hurley Med. Ctr. Bd. of Hosp. Mgrs.

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

CHIN TI LIN, M.D.,

v

UNPUBLISHED
September 20, 2005

No. 261918
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 04-080210-CZ

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Defendant-Appellee.

HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER BOARD OF
HOSPITAL MANAGERS,

Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, J.J.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in
defendant’s favor. We affirm.

I. Facts

Plaintiff, a urologist, applied for membership on the professional staff of Hurley Medical
Center. With plaintiff’s authorization, Hurley’s medical staff coordinator made inquiries about
plaintiff past performance. The responses, with one exception, were positive. The negative
response, among other things, indicated that plaintiff lacked competence to perform
percutaneious nephrostomies. The medical executive committee ultimately recommended to the
board of hospital managers that staff privileges not be granted to plaintiff on the basis of “failure
to demonstrate sufficient competence to practice his specialty without additional monitoring.”

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (“first action”) alleging that defendant’s failure to offer him an
opportunity to be heard denied him procedural due process rights. Defendant subsequently
afforded plaintiff a hearing, after which defendant upheld the denial of staff privileges. Plaintiff
then filed a motion to amend the complaint to include allegations that defendant’s decision to
deny him staff privileges violated his substantive due process rights because it was arbitrary and
capricious. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition arguing that there was no genuine
issue of material fact as to whether defendant provided plaintiff with an opportunity to be heard
and as to whether its decision was arbitrary or capricious. The trial court denied plaintiff’s
motion to amend and granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff did not
appeal these rulings.

-1-

Plaintiff then initiated the present action again alleging that defendant’s denial of staff
privileges was arbitrary and capricious. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition
arguing that plaintiff’s claim was barred by res judicata and that plaintiff had no right under the
Michigan or Federal constitutions to staff privileges. The trial court granted defendant’s motion.

II. Analysis

Plaintiff contends that his claim in the present action that defendant’s denial of privileges

was arbitrary and capricious is not barred by res judicata. We disagree. We review the
applicability of the doctrine of res judicata de novo. Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v KeeleBrass
Co, 460 Mich 372, 379; 596 NW2d 153 (1999).

Res judicata bars a subsequent action between the same parties when the facts or
evidence essential to the action are identical to the facts or evidence in a prior action. Dart v
Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). Res judicata requires that: (1) the prior action
was decided on the merits; (2) the decree in the prior action was a final decision; (3) the matter
contested in the second case was or could have been resolved in the first case; and (4) both
actions involved the same parties or their privies. Kosiel v Arrow Liquors Corp, 446 Mich 374,
379; 521 NW2d 531 (1994).

In plaintiff’s first action, plaintiff alleged that defendant denied him due process because
it did not hold a hearing before denying his request for staff privileges. After plaintiff filed the
complaint, defendant conducted a full hearing on the matter and again denied his request for staff
privileges. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to amend his complaint to add the claim that
defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s request for staff privileges was arbitrary and capricious. The
trial court, after reviewing the transcripts from that hearing, ruled that “there was competent,
material and substantial evidence on the record to support the decision by the Hurley board.”
The court went further and determined that even if the motion to amend had been granted, the
trial court would have granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR
2.116(C)(10) because there was no evidence to support plaintiff’s claim.

On the basis of this record, we conclude that plaintiff’s claim in the present action that
defendant’s decision was arbitrary and capricious was (1) decided on the merits; (2) the decree in
the prior action was a final decision; (3) the matter contested in the second case was resolved in
the first case; and (4) both actions involved the same parties or their privies. Kosiel, supra at
379. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s ruling in the present action that plaintiff claim in this
case was barred by res judicata. We need not address the other issue plaintiff has raised on
appeal because our determination that res judicata bars plaintiff’s claim resolves matter in its
entirety.

Affirmed.

/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

-2-