Opinion ID: 1168689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The appearance of fairness doctrine should have been applied to public hospital district's procedures for suspending staff physician's clinical privileges.

Text: The courts of this state have an inherent constitutional power to review the acts of public officials which are alleged to be arbitrary and capricious, or in violation of fundamental rights. This is a power which cannot be abridged, even by the legislature. State ex rel. Shannon v. Sponburgh, 66 Wn.2d 135, 401 P.2d 635 (1965). In reviewing the acts of public officials, our courts have developed the appearance of fairness doctrine, first articulated in Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715, 453 P.2d 832 (1969). In that case, we invalidated a zoning change because county commissioners permitted ex parte communications from proponents of the change, while they excluded comments from those opposed to the change. The rationale behind the doctrine is that an administrative body must be fair and free from prejudice and, in addition, it must have the appearance of being open-minded and fair. The public's confidence in governmental processes demands that there be such an appearance of fairness. Narrowsview Preservation Ass'n v. Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 526 P.2d 897 (1974). Once limited to zoning and land use cases, the doctrine now has broader application. See Hill v. Department of Labor & Indus., 90 Wn.2d 276, 580 P.2d 636 (1978); Chicago, M., St. P. & Pac. R.R. v. State Human Rights Comm'n, 87 Wn.2d 802, 557 P.2d 307 (1976). The courts of this state have inherent power to apply the appearance of fairness doctrine to hearings conducted by public officials acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner. Certainly the public's interest in the governmental process which controls the practice of medicine in our public hospitals is of no less import than the rights of citizens in zoning changes. To violate the appearance of fairness doctrine, there need not be shown any actual prejudice. The doctrine should not be limited to situations where blatant statements of advantage or influence have been made openly at a hearing, but must include those states of affairs where deliberations are blemished by the possibility of partiality ... Fleck v. King County, 16 Wn. App. 668, 672-73, 558 P.2d 254 (1977). We agree with the trial court that the ARB's decision was void due to Dr. Bunch's double role. He appeared as a witness before the hearing committee and served as a member of the ARB which reviewed the hearing committee report. His dual participation violated the appearance of fairness doctrine.