Marlin v. Robertson (Summary)

ANTITRUST/ BYLAWS AS A CONTRACT

Marlin v. Robertson, No. 04-08-00428-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 9, 2009)

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision granting summary judgment in favor of a hospital and several physician defendants in a suit brought by two pediatric neurosurgeons under the Texas Antitrust Act. The court also held that neither the medical staff bylaws nor the credentials manual created pursuant to those bylaws gave rise to contractual rights.

The neurosurgeons were on the staff of several hospitals and at various times, they resigned and then attempted to have their staff privileges reinstated. For a variety of reasons, including the withdrawal of applications, the physicians ultimately never regained privileges. The physicians argued that the defendant-doctors worked to eliminate them from their practice and that this cleared the way for the hospital to hire its own doctors and, as a result, this monopolized care. The court held that "even if the hospitals chose to engage the services of hospital-employed physicians, this aspect of the defendants’ behavior is consistent with competition. Further, ‘hiring talent cannot generally be held exclusionary even if it does weaken actual or potential rivals and strengthen a monopolist [because] there is a high social and personal interest in maintaining a freely functioning market for talent.’"

The neurosurgeons further alleged that the hospital’s treatment of them when they attempted to reapply for privileges at the hospital constituted a breach of contract, alleging a sham peer review process, threats of being reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank, and forced resignations. The physicians contended that the medical staff bylaws granted them contractual due process rights. The court held that "because the Medical Staff Bylaws do not define or limit the power of [the hospital] as it acts through its governing board, neither the Medical Staff Bylaws, nor the Credentials Manual created pursuant to those bylaws, give rise to contractual rights." Therefore, the trial court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of the hospital because no contract existed between the hospital and the physicians.