BERNARD GELBARD, M.D., APPELLANT, v. GENESEE HOSPITAL, RESPONDENT, ET AL.,
DEFENDANT.
87 N.Y.2d 691, 664 N.E.2d 1240, 642 N.Y.S.2d 178 (1996).
April 4, 1996
4 No. 39(1996 NY Int. 72)
Decided April 4, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Donald W. O'Brien, Jr., for Appellant.
Michael R. Wolford, for Respondent.
New York State Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc., et al.;
Healthcare Association of New York State, amici curiae.
CIPARICK, J.:
Plaintiff physician commenced this action for breach of contract
against defendant hospital seeking an order requiring the hospital to
restore his staff privileges. Because we conclude that the Public
Health Council must in these circumstances review plaintiff's
complaint before a court can order the restoration of his staff
privileges, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action for
breach of contract.
I.
Plaintiff Dr. Bernard Gelbard, a board-certified anesthesiologist,
was appointed to membership on the staff of The Genesee Hospital (TGH)
in 1989. In March 1993, Dr. A. Kirk Bodary, the Chief of TGH's
Department of Anesthesiology, recommended that plaintiff not be
reappointed to the hospital's medical staff. In support of his
recommendation, Dr. Bodary cited various incidents in which plaintiff
allegedly engaged in unacceptable medical practices. Dr. Bodary's
recommendation prompted a series of hearings before ad hoc and review
committees to determine what action, if any, the hospital should take
regarding plaintiff's staff privileges. These hearings culminated in a
resolution of TGH's Board of Governors terminating plaintiff's medical
staff privileges.
Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action asserting three causes of
action. The first cause of action, asserted against TGH, is for breach
of contract based on TGH's alleged violation of specific medical staff
SNIPPETS:
Plaintiff physician commenced this action for breach of contract against defendant hospital
Because we conclude that the Public Health Council must in these circumstances review
Plaintiff Dr. Bernard Gelbard, a board-certified anesthesiologist, was appointed to
Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action asserting three causes of action.
Plaintiff does not seek monetary damages for the alleged breach of contract but rather seeks
plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction restraining TGH from terminating his staff
TGH cross-moved to dismiss the first cause of action on the ground that Supreme Court lacked
Supreme Court also denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss, concluding that because
The Appellate Division concluded that whether administrative review is required by the Public
At the time of the enactment of section 2801-b of the Public Health Law, a physician had no
Ass'n, 11 NY2d 205, 208-209).
To enforce the statutory prohibition against improper practices, the Legislature created a
First, the physician must submit a complaint to the Public Health Council (PHC), a committee
After investigating the physician's complaint, the PHC will either direct the hospital to
Only upon completion of the PHC review may the physician proceed to the second step, which is
The requirement of threshold PHC review serves the dual purpose of allowing an expert body to
This process assists judicial decision-making in a subsequent court action because the PHC's
|
