Court Opinion

ID: 9845172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:16:10.519258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:53.565127
License: Public Domain

O’Haka, J.
(concurring in result). I concur reluctantly in the result reached by Mr. Justice KavaNagh in part one of his opinion dealing with sections 9.10 and 4.12 of the bylaws. My reluctance derives from the unfortunate wording of the involved sections. Section 9.10 rests its appeal provision on section 4.13. Hence, it is impossible to distinguish between the action of a medical staff in reducing a physician’s privileges and the revocation of his staff membership. It is one thing to curtail a certain medical procedure which a hospital staff considers improper treatment in a given case or type of case. It is quite another to revoke a staff membership, especially when viewed from the standpoint of those places in our State where revocation of a hospital staff membership is tantamount *64in practical effect to revocation of the right to practice medicine. To me, there is a vast difference.
However, I agree with Justice KavaNagh that the constitutionality of section 4.12 should be considered in the first instance by the trial court..
Dethmers, C. J., concurred with O’Hara, J.