 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Maheshwari v. Governing Board of Sharp Memorial Hospital4/10/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
By this appeal, the plaintiff B. D. Maheshwari, M.D., a cardiologist, seeks to overturn the court's decision upholding Sharp Memorial Hospital's (Sharp's) decision to deny his application for staff privileges. When Dr. Maheshwari applied for staff privileges, the medical executive committee (MEC) for Sharp denied his application on the basis that (1) it had concerns about the quality of Dr. Maheshwari's care at another hospital, Riverside Community Hospital (RCH), where he had previously worked; and (2) he allegedly did not provide sufficient information to Sharp with his application for Sharp to perform a complete evaluation of his application. Dr. Maheshwari appealed that decision to Sharp's judicial review committee (JRC), and when it denied his appeal, he appealed to the defendant Governing Board of Sharp Memorial Hospital (the Board). The Board denied Dr. Maheshwari's appeal.
Dr. Maheshwari thereafter filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (petition) under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, asserting that Sharp's application process violated his due process rights, was unfair, and that Sharp's actions were arbitrary and capricious. He also contended that there was no substantial evidence to support Sharp's decision, and that Sharp erred by excluding certain evidence Dr. Maheshwari sought to submit at the hearing before the JRC (JRC Hearing).
The court ruled in favor of Sharp on Dr. Maheshwari's petition. First, the court found that substantial evidence supported Sharp's decision. The court also found that Sharp provided Dr. Maheshwari with a fair procedure in conjunction with his application. The court found that there was no substantial evidence to support Dr. Maheshwari's assertion that Sharp acted arbitrarily and capriciously during the process. The court also found that Sharp's decision to exclude certain evidence was supported by the record. Finally, the court found that there was no merit to Dr. Maheshwari's claim of a violation of his due process rights.
On this appeal, Dr. Maheshwari first asserts his fair procedure rights were violated because Sharp's actions were "arbitrary and capricious." Specifically, Dr. Maheshwari asserts that Sharp (1) decided to "get rid of" his application before it received any records concerning the RCH cases; (2) refused to allow him to meet with Sharp committees; (3) required Dr. Maheshwari to submit patient names and other confidential information in connection with his application; (4) conducted an investigation searching for medical malpractice actions filed against him and his wife; and (5) breached its promise to obtain patient information from other hospitals before making a decision on his application. Dr. Maheshwari also contends that the process was unfair because Sharp allowed its chief of medical staff, who was biased against Dr. Maheshwari's application, to be involved in the decision-making process.
Dr. Maheshwari asserts that his equal protection rights were violated because Sharp's bylaws do not afford applicants for staff privileges the same right to meet with committee members as members of the medical staff. Dr. Maheshwari asserts that the JRC hearing officer erred by excluding from consideration on his appeal certain medical records, follow-up information and declarations from former patients. Finally, Dr. Maheshwari contends that S
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|