Opinion ID: 2604297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: kiester's claim for damages

Text: Kiester contends that he had a property right to have his application reviewed and his privileges granted and that because of the defective first appellate review hearing he is entitled to damages under McMillan v. Anchorage Community Hospital, 646 P.2d 857 (Alaska 1982). The facts in McMillan are distinguishable from the facts of this case. McMillan involved a physician who had received staff privileges. Id. McMillan's staff privileges were summarily suspended and he sued claiming breach of contract and a violation of his due process rights. Id. We found that while McMillan's summary suspension was not justified under the bylaws, facts adduced at a later hearing were sufficient to justify a post-hearing suspension. Id. at 866-67. We found reinstatement unnecessary but remanded for determination of damages measured from the date of the summary suspension up to the proper suspension following the second hearing. Id. at 867. Kiester's situation is unlike Dr. McMillan's because he never was granted surgical privileges, except for temporary privileges which expired automatically. Kiester has offered no legal authority for the proposition that he had a property right to have his application reviewed and his privileges granted. Because of a lack of briefing, we decline to answer the question whether in this context a denial of due process of law, by itself, entitles an applicant to damages. [12] REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings including a remand to Humana's governing body for consideration of Kiester's claim that he correctly answered the questions of the Ad Hoc Committee.