Stevens v. Emergency Hospital

⁵²⁸ Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. By his amended bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Talbot County, the appellant alleged that he was a practitioner of medicine, residing in Easton, Talbot County, where he was engaged in the practice of his profession, “specializing particularly in surgical cases”; that he was in good standing in his profession, a member of the Medical and Chirurgical Eaeulty of Maryland, and a member of the Talbot County Medical Society; that in the year 1906 the defendant, the Emergency Hospital of Easton, was incorporated under the general laws of the State, as appeared from its certificate of incorporation filed with the bill, and that he was largely instrumental in the organization of the hospital, contributed to its creation financially and otherwise, and had been identified with its work from the day of its organization to the time of the filing of the bill in this case; that the plan of government of the hospital is to be gathered from its charter, constitution and by-laws, and that by article 7 of its constitution it is provided that its medical staff “shall consist of the practitioners of medicine in good standing in Talbot County, including physicians who may have retired from active practice on account of age or for other good reasons,” from which staff the directors were to designate representatives to look after the interests of the hospital; that said article also contained the proviso that “such designation shall not in any way conflict with any physician in the management of a private patient, it being the intention to give all physicians of this and adjoining counties an opportunity to control the medical treatment of their private patients, subject to the rules and regulations of the hospital”; that under such provisions neither the plaintiff nor any other physician of Talbot County could be interfered with in the use of the hospital for a private patient, unless and until the membership of the corporation has altered its purposes and objects as set forth in said article; that in 1906 the membership of the corporation, consisting of persons over the age of eighteen ⁵²⁹ years who had subscribed and paid annually not less than two dollars, adopted the by-laws referred to, by section six of which it was provided that in addition to the medical staff there should be a local staff composed of the members of the Talbot County Medical 'Society in good standing, practicing in the City of Easton, and that this local staff “shall have control of the medical and surgical departments of the hospital” ; that by reason of bis membership1 in said society he became “automatically” a member of said local staff, with the right to practice surgery in the hospital, of which he could not be deprived except by the action of the membership of .the corporation by way of an amendment of its constitution and by-laws; that said section of the by-laws, also provided for the selection of an active staff consisting of three physicians to be taken from “a given list,” and that he, the plaintiff, is specially named in said section “as one of the list”; that a later paragraph of said section sis of the by-laws provided that airy physician who is a member of the Medical and Chirugical Faculty of Maryland may send bis “patients to this hospital and have the privilege of treating their own patients when so admitted, or he may designate any M. T). in good standing to attend such patients”; that by reason of said constitution and by-laws, and particularly article 7 of the constitution and section 6 of the by-laws, and the “several positions, and capacities held by him,” the plaintiff is entitled to all the benefits and privileges of said hospital accorded to physicians and surgeons for which the1 hospital was founded; that on or about the 5th of April, 1920, four physicians living in the town of Easton, and styling themselves “The Staff,” passed a resolution, a copy of which was. filed with the bill, the effect of which, “if permitted to be carried into effect,” would be to deprive all physicians not named therein of the proper use and benefit of the hospital; that the effect of said resolution would be to defeat the objects and purposes of the corporation, and that it is contrary to the constitution and by-laws and null and void; that since the date of said ⁵³⁰ resolution lie, the plaintiff, has been illegally .and wrongfully deprived of the use and benefit of the hospital in the treatment of his surgical cases, and has been denied the right to operate surgically upon his private patients in the hospital by four of the directors and the superintendent of the hospital, who, acting under said resolution, with the approval of the hoard of directors, has. denied him the right to use the operating room and equipment of the hospital; that such conduct of the defendant corporation, its officers', agents, &c., has greatly injured his reputation and professional standing, his practice has been greatly damaged and he has sustained great loss and damag;e, and that he will continue to sustain- and suffer great loss and damage unless the court restrains the defendant corporation, its officers, agents, &c., from interfering with his rights, as such wrongs are not susceptible of adequate remedy at law. The defendant demurred to the amended bill, but the court below overruled the demurrer, whereupon the defendant filed its answer and moved to dissolve the injunction that had been granted, in which answer it alleged that the defendant had such powers as are set forth in its charter’, constitution and by-laws and is given under the laws of the State; that the copy of the constitution and by-laws filed as plaintiff’s exhibit Dl was not a true copy of the constitution and by-laws “now in existence”’or in existence at the time of the institution of this suit; that the true copy of the same is filed with the answer as exhibit A; that the provisions of the constitution have been altered as shown by said Exhibit A; and that it denies that any physician, under the charter, constitution, by-laws or general law, “as they now exist, or as they existed at any time,” was authorized to- practice surgery in said hospital without the consent of the hoard of directors or other properly constituted authorities ; that it admits that the provision mentioned in the hill does appear in section six of the by-laws as they formerly existed, but that said provision was repealed prior to the institution of the suit, and that no ⁵³¹ physician by reason of Ms membership in any medical or .surgical faculty, or society, has the right to perform surgical operations in the hospital; that on the 5th of April, 1920, a meeting of the staff of the hospital was held, at which there were present Dr. Stevens, Dr. Davidson, Dr. Travers, Dr. Palmer and Dr. Hammond, and that at said meeting those present elected a surgical staff, composed of Dr. Davidson, Dr. Travers and Dr. Palmer, and a medical staff, composed of Dr. Stevens and Dr. Hammond, and that “Dr. Stevens, not being named upon the surgical staff, withdrew1 from the meeting,” that said action of the staff was reported to and approved by the board of directors on the 14th of June; thát it admits that after said election and the approval thereof, the hoard of directors undertook to prevent the plaintiff from performing surgical operations in the hospital; that on the 4th of October, 1920, at the regular meeting of the members of the defendant corporation, the constitution thereof was amended, so that after that date the constitution was and is as set forth in defendant’s exhibit A, and that under the constitution as amended the staff of the hospital has full authority and control over surgical operations to be performed in the hospital; that it will appear by defendant’s exhibit D that certain physicians have been designated as being entitled to perform surgical operations in the hospital,- and that the plaintiff is not one of them; that- the whole case is based upon the provisions of the constitution as it existed prior to the amendment of October 4th, 1920, but that even under1 the former constitution and by-laws, especially under section 6 of tbe by-laws, which provided that “no surgical operation of any kind or character shall be performed except by consent of tbe active staff,” the plaintiff, in view of the action of the staff, had no right to perform surgical operations in the hospital at- the time of the institution of this suit. The constitution of the defendant corporation, as it stood prior to the alleged amendment of October 4th, 3920, provided that the “board of directors shall have general manage ⁵³² ment and control and care of the finances, property and equipment of the corporation, with power to fix the number of assistants to the superintendent and the salaries to be paid to such assistants.

They shall also have the power to fill all vacancies occurring in the board of directors or of positions held by the employees,” and article 7 of the constitution was as follows: “Article 7, Medical Staff. — There shall he a medical staff to consist of the practitioners of medicine of good standing in Talbot County, including physicians who may have retired from active practice on account of age or other good reasons, all of whom shall be members of the society without dues, from which medical staff the board of directors shall designate members as they think proper to look after the interests of the hospital in accordance with such by-laws as may hereafter be enacted, provided, however, that such designation shall not in any way conflict with any physician in the management of a private patient, it being the intention to give all physicians of this and adjoining counties an opportunity to control the medical treatment of their private patients, subject to the rules and regulations of the hospital. Any physician residing outside of the county may become an associate member of the staff upon application, duly approved by the local staff.” Section 6 of the by-laws provided: “6. Staff. In addition to the staff as provided for in the constitution there shall be a local staff to be composed of the members of the Talbot County Medical Society in good standing, practicing in the City of Easton, Maryland, who shall have control of the medical and surgical departments of the hospital.

From such local staff an active staff shall be selected to consist of three physieiaiis to be taken in rotation from the following list, to wit: ⁵³³ “E. E. Trippe, J. A. Stevens (the plaintiff), J. B. Merritt, C. E. Davidson, S. D. Willson, P. L. Travers, A. B. Hayward. “They shall serve one month dating from the 15th of each month, and their duty shall he to take charge of all cases, expressing no preference, or in an unconscious condition, and shall pass upon the propriety of admission of applicants to the hospital when asked to do so by the superintendent. “Any physician who is a member of the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland may send his patients to this hospital, and have the privilege of treating their own patients when so admitted, or he may designate any M. D. in good standing to attend such patients. “No surgical operation of any kind or character shall be performed except by consent of the active staff.” The