Court Opinion

ID: 9530940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:05:27.248763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:17.694301
License: Public Domain

Thompson, J.,
with whom
Gunderson, J., agrees, dissenting:
Dr. Moore, a Board certified physician and surgeon who specializes in obstetrics and gynecology, and is licensed to practice in Nevada, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate to compel his admission to membership on the medical staff of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, a public hospital.2 He was excluded from staff privileges for “unprofessional conduct” in that on one occasion he administered a spinal anesthetic without wearing sterile gloves, and on another occasion he had appeared at the hospital to perform scheduled surgery when in no condition physically or mentally to do so. The spinal anesthetic was administered without damage to the patient. Dr. Moore acquiesced in the postponement of the scheduled surgery and successfully performed the operation at a later time.
1. It is apparent that important rights and policies are involved. The effect of expulsion from a medical staff can be disastrous for it may follow the doctor to other areas and have the result of denying to a licensed physician qualified to practice in Nevada the right to fully exercise his profession. Conditions of modern medicine almost make it imperative that a doctor have a hospital in which he can practice. On the other hand, a hospital cannot function without its medical staff whose most important responsibility is to see that the staff members conform to certain standards which the community has the right to expect.
The Board of Hospital Trustees enjoys the power to control *214the admission of physicians to the staff by promulgating appropriate rules, regulations and standards [NRS 450.180(4); 450.440(1)] and concomitantly, possesses the power to exclude physicians who do not comply with appropriate rules thus promulgated. The “By-Laws, Rules & Regulations Governing the Medical Staff” promulgated by the Carson-Tahoe Board of Trustees, in relevant part, provide only that any Medical Staff member “who is guilty of unprofessional conduct may have his privileges reviewed, altered or rescinded by the Board of Trustees on recommendation of the Medical Staff.” One searches in vain for a description of “unprofessional conduct” even in general terms. Herein lies the difficulty with the instant matter. A hospital should not be permitted to adopt standards for the exclusion of doctors which are so vague and ambiguous as to provide a substantial danger of arbitrary discrimination in their application. Rosner v. Eden Township Hospital District, 375 P.2d 431 (Cal. 1962); Jacobs v. Martin, 90 A.2d 151 (N.J.Sup. 1952).
Our legislature has defined “unprofessional conduct” for the guidance of the Board of Medical Examiners in exercising its disciplinary powers. NRS 630.030; 630.300. A definition was deemed essential in order to guard against discriminatory action by the Board of Medical Examiners. A suitable definition is equally essential to protect a hospital staff member from arbitrary conduct by a Board of Hospital Trustees of a public hospital. Absent that definition, the Board is clothed with almost unlimited power, susceptible of abuse.
2. The acts for which Dr. Moore was expelled from the staff point to the need for a definition of “unprofessional conduct.” His acquiescence in the request not to perform scheduled surgery was an act of compliance rather than an act of disobedience. And, the administration of an anesthetic without sterile gloves can be no more than an isolated instance of negligence which did not result in injury or damage. Such an isolated act without injury cannot be a reasonable basis for revocation of staff privileges, for if it is, and if enforced equally and without discrimination, medical staffs will disappear entirely. Every professional man errs from time to time.
3. The Board is concerned with its liability to third persons for the misconduct of its staff members. Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 211 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1965). This is a legitimate concern, but it possesses no relevance to the case at hand. Neither of the instances relied upon by the Board to justify the expulsion of Dr. Moore could possibly *215result in Board liability to others. Consequently, this concern of the Board points to the arbitrariness of its action rather than to a reason for sustaining it. Cf. Boswell v. Bd. Med. Ex., 72 Nev. 20, 293 P.2d 424 (1956).
The judgment should be reversed with directions to issue a writ of mandate compelling the Board to admit Dr. Moore to membership on the medical staff.

 A doctor has a right to treat his patients in a public hospital so long as he conforms to the reasonable rules and regulations of the hospital. Findlay v. Board of Sup’rs of County of Mohave, 230 P.2d 526 (Ariz. 1951); Ware v. Benedikt, 280 S.W.2d 234 (Ark. 1955); Hamilton County Hospital v. Andrews, 84 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. 1949). And, of course, a writ of mandate may issue “to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled and from which he is unlawfully precluded. . . .” NRS 34.160; State v. City of Parkersburg, 136 S.E.2d 783 (W.Va. 1964).