Opinion ID: 767386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and Business Relationships Claim

Text: 17 As to the tortious interference claim, the claim on which the district court found the most chance of success by plaintiff, Michigan law is very clear that claims arising from the peer review process are not judicially reviewable. The district court therefore did not have jurisdiction to review this claim. Under Michigan law, a private hospital is empowered to appoint and remove its members at will without judicial intervention and has the right to exclude any doctor from practicing therein. Muzquiz v. W.A. Foote Mem. Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d 422, 430 (6th Cir. 1995); Long v. Chelsea Community Hosp., 219 Mich. App. 578, 586, 557 N.W.2d 157, 161 (1996); Sarin v. Samaritan Health Center, 176 Mich. App. 790,795, 440 N.W.2d 80 (1989); Veldhus v. Central Mich. Community Hosp., 142 Mich. App. 243, 246, 369 N.W.2d 478, 479-80 (1985); Hoffman v. Garden City Hosp.-Osteopathic, 115 Mich. App. 773, 778-79, 321 N.W.2d 810 (1982). 18 The only exception to this nonreviewability rule arises when defendants have been accused of violating state or federal law, such as state or federal discrimination laws. The district court was free to review the federal antitrust and discrimination claims, as we did above, but it was without jurisdiction to review plaintiff's claim of tortious interference with contractual relations and business relationships, as are we, because it would necessarily involve a review of the decision to suspend plaintiff and the methods or reasons behind that action, which is clearly prohibited under Michigan law as improper interference with the hospital's decisions and the peer review process. See Sarin at 791-92, 440 N.W.2d at 80. Although plaintiff does not allege that the hospital breached its contract with him and he is not asking for a specific review of whether the hospital followed its own procedures in suspending him, he is actually seeking judicial intervention into the decision of a private hospital to suspend his staff privileges. A decision of this nature is not proper matter for judicial intervention and consideration of his claim would make a mockery of the rule that prohibits judicial review of such decisions by private hospitals. Id. at 794, 440 N.W.2d at 83. 19 The judicial reviewability of medical staffing decisions has been debated and continues to be debated in most states. Most physicians are not employed by a hospital but instead are independent contractors who are granted privileges to use a hospital, including its staff and equipment. A hospital's procedures for granting or renewing privileges and the standards by which a doctor must abide are generally embodied in the hospital's bylaws. 20 Most jurisdictions distinguish between private and public hospitals, with the staffing decisions of public hospitals subject to the due process and equal protections guarantees under the United States Constitution and the staffing decisions of private hospitals generally unreviewable or subject to very limited judicial review. 1 In addition, the level of judicial review may differ between decisions to grant privileges as an initial matter and decisions to limit or suspend existing privileges. 21 The rule generally forbidding judicial review of staffing decisions by private hospitals appears to be the majority view in the United States, although some jurisdictions allow limited judicial review to ensure only that the hospital followed its own procedures. See, e.g., Owens v. New Britain Gen. Hosp., 229 Conn. 592, 643 A.2d 233 (1994); Lewisburg Comm. Hosp., Inc. v. Alfredson, 805 S.W.2d 756 (Tenn. 1991); Wong v. Garden Park Comm. Hosp., Inc., 565 So. 2d 550 (Miss. 1990); Bouquett v. St. Elizabeth Corp., 43 Ohio St. 3d 50, 558 N.E.2d 113 (1989); Bock v. John C. Lincoln Hosp., 145 Ariz. 432, 702 P.2d 253 (Ariz. Ct. of App. 1985); Spencer v. Community Hosp. of Evanston, 87 Ill. App. 3d 214, 408 N.E.2d 981 (1980); Margolin v. Morton F. Plant Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 348 So. 2d 57 (Fla. App. 1977). Michigan follows an even more stringent rule that does not allow any review, even to ensure that the methods put forth by hospital for peer review are followed. See, e.g., Sarin v. Samaritan Health Center, 176 Mich. App. 790, 795, 440 N.W.2d 80 (1989); accord Zipper v. Health Midwest, 978 S.W.2d 398 (Mo. App. 1998); Winston v. American Med. Int'l, Inc., 930 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1997). The third option, followed by a small but apparently growing number of states, allows judicial review to ensure that the hospital's decision wasnot arbitrary and capricious or otherwise unreasonable. The laws in these jurisdictions require that the hospital's decision to suspend or otherwise limit a physician's access to the hospital facilities be supported by some evidence or allow some further analysis beyond review only of adherence by the hospital to its procedures. See, e.g., Cooper v. Delaware Valley Med. Center, 539 Pa. 620, 654 A.2d 547 (1995); Zoneraich v. Overlook Hosp., 212 N.J. Super. 83, 514 A.2d 53 (1986). 22 In light of Michigan's flat rule against judicial intervention, we conclude that the district court erred in finding a likelihood of success on the merits on the tortious interference with contractual relations and business relationships claim.