Court Opinion

ID: 989478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:07:34.455059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:14.378633
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR N. AMBRUOSO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES C. MCGEORGE, M.D.; NOEL
DOROMAL, M.D.; STAN A.
RAMPEY, M.D.; HENRY
SALZARULO, M.D.; OCONEE                                             No. 95-2876
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

PAUL THOMPSON, M.D.; LARK
SCHULTZ,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-94-2149-8-3)

Argued: May 6, 1996

Decided: June 6, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HALL and LUTTIG,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Arthur Camden Lewis, LEWIS, BABCOCK & HAW-
KINS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Vincent Clark Price,
LOVE, THORNTON, ARNOLD & THOMASON, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee Oconee Memorial; Sarah Shannon McMillan,
HAYNSWORTH, MARION, MCKAY & GUERARD, L.L.P.,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees McGeorge, Doromal, Ram-
pey, and Salzarulo. ON BRIEF: Mark W. Hardee, LEWIS, BAB-
COCK & HAWKINS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Victor N. Ambruoso appeals an order of the district court
granting summary judgment to the defendants, Oconee Memorial
Hospital and four of its staff physicians, in Ambruoso's suit alleging
violations of due process and of state common law arising from the
termination of his staff privileges at the hospital. We have considered
the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, and we affirm the
judgment of the district court for the reasons, with one minor excep-
tion, stated in that court's memorandum opinion. Ambruoso v.
McGeorge, No. 8:94-2149-3 (D.S.C., Aug. 16, 1995).

The district court held that Ambruoso had made no request for
injunctive relief. Memorandum Opinion, at 3 n.1. We believe that he
did, but that the form of relief requested is not available from a court.
The amended complaint stated, "The Plaintiff would further pray that
the court review de novo the actions of Oconee Memorial Hospital in
suspending the Plaintiff and denying him hospital privileges and order
that the suspension be lifted and that his privileges be reinstated."

                    2
We have no special competence to review medical staffing deci-
sions. Our narrow role in the peer-review context is to assure that the
process of that review comports with the law; the ultimate result is
not our concern. Even if we were to conclude that the process
afforded Ambruoso was insufficient -- and no rational trier of fact
could so conclude -- we could not review the staffing decision de
novo or order that Ambruoso's privileges be reinstated. Upon direct-
ing that sufficient process be afforded, we would exhaust our equita-
ble power. Laje v. R. E. Thomason General Hospital, 564 F.2d 1159,
1162-1163 (5th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, while Ambruoso has
requested injunctive relief, he has not stated a cognizable claim for
injunctive relief.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

                    3