Mateo-Woodburn v. Fresno Community Hospital Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Mateo-Woodburn v. Fresno Community Hospital Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Mateo-Woodburn v. Fresno Community Hospital | 221 Cal. App. 3d 1169, 270 Cal. Rptr. 894 (1990) Hospital administrations often make policy decisions to improve patient care. Mateo Woodburn versus Fresno Community Hospital explains the legal implications that may arise when these decisions negatively impact staff privileges. The anesthesiology department at Fresno Community Hospital consisted of competing and autonomous anesthesiologists with staff privileges. Under this open staff system, all the anesthesiologists scheduled themselves for the surgeries they wanted to take. As a result, anesthesiologists often chose the most profitable surgeries rather than those that best suited their experience and qualifications. This open system also caused many administrative problems such as staff miscommunication, surgery delays, and quality control issues that endangered patients’ health and safety. Because of these issues, medical staff members asked the hospital’s board of trustees to change how the anesthesiology department operated. The board then held several meetings to collect input from staff and formed a task force to study and propose various staff system options. Ultimately, the board created a closed system. Under this system, the hospital contracted with Doctor William Hass to supply subcontracted anesthesiologists. The contract authorized Hass to hire and supervise the anesthesiologists and assign them to surgeries. Hass offered subcontracts to all but one of the anesthesiologists who currently held staff privileges at the hospital. Several anesthesiologists accepted the offer. Those who didn’t lost the right to participate in surgeries or directly serve patients at the hospital but retained other staff privileges like consulting and assessment services. The anesthesiologists who didn’t sign subcontracts, including Doctor Cynthia Mateo Woodburn, sued the hospital, seeking injunctive relief. They alleged that the hospital unlawfully terminated their vested staff privileges without due process. The trial court found that the hospital acted properly under the circumstances and denied the injunction. The anesthesiologists appealed to the California Court of Appeal. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mateo-w... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mateo-w... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries