Opinion ID: 2604297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Judicial review of hospital privileges applications.

Text: Courts are in general agreement that the decisions of a hospital governing body regarding applications for hospital privileges are to be accorded great deference, and that judicial review should be limited to factors which are within the expertise of courts. See, e.g., Laje v. R.E. Thomason Gen. Hosp., 564 F.2d 1159, 1162 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 3091, 57 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1978). We have recognized that it is not within the expertise of courts to determine whether a physician has the medical training and experience to qualify for membership on a hospital staff or to qualify for specific medical or surgical privileges: Courts have recognized that the evaluation of the medical qualifications of physicians is a factual determination properly committed to the expert judgment of the hospital authorities: No court should substitute its evaluation of such matters for that of the Hospital Board.... The evaluation of professional proficiency of doctors is best left to the specialized expertise of their peers, subject only to limited judicial surveillance. Eidelson v. Archer, 645 P.2d 171, 177 (Alaska 1982) (omission in original) (quoting Sosa v. Bd. of Managers of the Val Verde Mem. Hosp., 437 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir.1971)). However, courts are equipped to determine whether a hospital governing body has followed its bylaws and whether a decision regarding an application for privileges was made in accordance with basic principles of fairness and due process of law. [2] Courts may require that the procedures employed by the hospital are fair, that the standards set by the hospital are reasonable, and that they have been applied without arbitrariness and capriciousness. Laje, 564 F.2d at 1162. This type of limited review does not intrude upon a hospital's recognized expertise regarding evaluation of medical qualifications, yet it affords protection to an applicant against arbitrary denial of privileges in violation of an applicant's rights to substantive and procedural due process of law.