Greenbelt cooperator., 1942-05-29
DR.. Silagy



similar cooperative group raised
in the minds of your Board serious
doubts as to DR.. Silagy's place in
our type of plan
The arbitrators found that at
is admitted that DIR. Silagy sub
mitted the clause in question for
advice to a former member of
he legislative committee of the
New York County Medical Society.
Whether or not DR.. Silagy sub
nnitted the contract to the Amer
lcan Medical Association for it's
consideration is not clear, nor is
t material. He Intentionally Great
ed the impression, and led the
Board to believe, that he had in
fact so submitted it. 1t appears,
also, that he requested copies of
tht contract for the avowed pur-
pose of submitting it to DR.. Morris
Fishbein of the American MedI-
cal Association.
:. DR.. Silagy possessed the
legal right to consult anyone ne
chose for advice on the subject d..
1t appears to US, however, whether
justified or not, that this tactic of
DR.. Silagy was used as a weapon
in his struggle with the Board to
dominate the Associations pol
icies. Despite the fact that DR..
Silagy may have deemed the end
as justification of the means, we
are of the opinion that, in the
light of the known views of TIE
American Medical Association
and its affiliates, his conduct was
ill-advised."
Failed to Cooperate
2. "While DR.. Silagy admonish-
ed the members at the last meet
ing to let by-gones be by-gones',
he has failed to cooperate with
DR.. Clesson Richardson, our new
physician. DIR. Richardson had no
part in our past differences. Still,
DIR. Silagy has seriously hindered
him in his efforts to fulfill his du-
ties. He has failed to enter into
any sort of consulting or social
amenities with him. He has failed
to introduce him to the hospital
staff. He has substantially failed
to render him assistance in the
establishment of his medical prac-
tice in Greenbelt. This was 8 sit
uation which was entirely in the
hands of DIR. Silagy, a situation
which gave him an opportunity to
help put into effect the teamwork
of group practice for which this
Association was organized"
1t is the opinion of the ar5itra-
tors that the Board acted within
its legal rights in appointing DR..
Richardson to the medical staff,
but that the friction which follow
ed might well have been antici-
pated.
"We are of the opinion that DR..
Silagy did not affirmatively CO.
operate with DIR. Richardson" the
arbitors state in the written de-
cision.
3. "Un connection with finances)
DIR. Silagy insisted upon certain
points and indicated that if the
Association failed to comply with
his demands, that he would sue it.
He also stated that we should
assess our members to meet GER
tain tax liabilities incurred by
the previous medical staff, even
though he subsequently admitted
in letter to the Acting President
that these were the liabilities of
the physicians
Tax Payment Was Proper
at is our opinion, the arbi-
traitors state, "that the Associa-
ton acted properly in paying the
(Social Security tax under pro-
test"
eve find that is was entirely
proper for the Treasurer to de-
termine the amount, if any, claim
ed by the Washington Group
Health Association, in order to
clear all obligations arising out
of the old contract and release
the balance of the funds to the
doctors (however) the Treas
urer acted improperly in making
this payment without notice to
DIR. Silagy."
AS to DIR. Silagy's charge of in
reference or lack of cooperation
by the Association in the collec-
ton of old accounts of the physi.
clans, the "Arbitrators are of the
opinion that the Association acted
within its strict legal rights in re.
fusing to handle funds which were
the property of the three doctors
jointly or DIR. Silagy alone. 1t is
not impossible, in view of the
known controversy between the
doctors themselves, that at some
later day the Association might
have faced litigation if it haC
I@K4I - S,1oc-r, oil