Opinion ID: 1058767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority to Close the Staff of the Imaging Department

Text: When construing a statute, this Court's role is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope. Houghton v. Aramark Educ. Res., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tenn.2002) (quoting Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn.1995)). Legislative intent is determined from the natural and ordinary meaning of the statutory language within the context of the entire statute without any forced or subtle construction that would extend or limit the statute's meaning. State v. Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 195, 197 (Tenn. 2000). When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we apply the plain language in its normal and accepted use. Boarman v. Jaynes, 109 S.W.3d 286, 291 (Tenn. 2003). CRMC operates pursuant to the Hospital Authority Act. This act extends the powers granted to private act metropolitan hospital authorities under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 7-57-501 to -504 to private act hospital authorities. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 7-57-603 (1998). Tennessee Code Annotated section 7-57-502(c) provides in pertinent part that a metropolitan hospital authority, in the exercise of its powers, may contract for or otherwise participate solely or with others in furtherance of the hospital's operation. Additionally, the plain language of this statute permits private act metropolitan hospitals to enter into a contract  regardless of the competitive consequences [of the contract].  Tenn.Code Ann. § 7-57-502(c) (1998) (emphasis added). Therefore, it is clear that private act metropolitan hospital authorities are statutorily authorized to execute exclusive provider contracts. Tennessee Code Annotated section 7-57-603 explicitly states that [a] private act hospital authority . . . has . . . all powers granted to private act metropolitan hospital authorities in title 7, chapter 57, part 5. Thus, it is also clear that public hospitals share the power of metropolitan hospitals to enter into exclusive provider contracts. Moreover, Tennessee Code Annotated section 7-57-501(b) explains the policy behind the Private Act Metropolitan Authorities Act of 1995. According to this statute, the General Assembly found that the demand for hospital, medical and health care services is rapidly changing as is the way and manner in which such services are purchased and delivered; that the market for hospital and health care services is becoming increasingly competitive; and that the hospital and other health care providers need flexibility to be able to respond to changing conditions by having the power to develop efficient and cost-effective methods to provide for hospital, medical and health care needs. Tenn.Code Ann. § 7-57-501(b) (1998). The Legislature concluded that public hospitals in metropolitan areas are unable to effectively compete against private hospitals in the health care market without the removal of legal constraints and limitations upon the power granted to public hospitals under existing law. Id. The Hospital Authority Act broadened the powers of public hospitals. Eye Clinic, P.C. v. Jackson-Madison County Gen. Hosp., 986 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). Case law at the time the Hospital Authority Act was passed held that private hospitals have the right to exclude licensed physicians and surgeons from the use of the hospital for any cause deemed sufficient by its managing authorities. Nashville Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Binkley, 534 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Tenn.1976). In our view, the Hospital Authority Act was clearly intended to overrule Henderson v. Knoxville, 157 Tenn. 477, 9 S.W.2d 697 (1928), which held that the state's public hospitals could not exclude licensed physicians who comply with hospital rules and regulations. The apparent intent of the Legislature was that public hospitals be authorized, like private hospitals, to contract exclusively with particular providers, even if it is to the disadvantage of other physicians. The Hospital Authority Act shows this intent by specifically granting public hospitals the power previously granted to public hospitals in metropolitan areas to contract for or otherwise participate solely or with others in the . . . operation of [a] hospital. Tenn.Code Ann. § 7-57-502(c) (1998). We therefore hold that the Hospital Authority Act permits the Authority to close the staff of the Imaging Department of CRMC by means of an exclusive provider contract. We accordingly hold that Henderson v. Knoxville has been legislatively overruled by the Hospital Authority Act.