May 27 2009
DA 08-0394
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 190N
EUGENE F. HUGHES, JR., M.D.,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ST. JAMES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., a Montana
non-profit corporation, and the MEDICAL STAFF OF ST. JAMES
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, an unincorporated association,
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Butte/Silver Bow, Cause No. CV 01-182
Honorable Loren Tucker, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
James M. Kommers; Kommers Law Firm, P.C.; Bozeman, Montana
For Appellees:
Gregory G. Murphy; Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather, P.C.;
Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 29, 2009
Decided: May 27, 2009
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the
State Reporter Publishing Company and West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable
cases issued by this Court.
¶2 This Court has previously reviewed issues related to the actions of Appellant
Eugene F. Hughes, M.D., which led to the revocation of his medical privileges at St.
James Community Hospital at issue in this case. For the sake of brevity, we will not
restate those facts, which can be found at Hughes v. Pullman, 2001 MT 216, 306 Mont.
420, 36 P.3d 339 (“Hughes I”) (affirming the District Court’s entry of summary judgment
on Hughes’ false imprisonment and civil conspiracy claims against members of St.
James’ Medical Staff); and Hughes v. Mont. Bd. of Med. Examrs., 2003 MT 305, 318
Mont. 181, 80 P.3d 415 (“Hughes II”) (affirming the District Court’s conclusion that the
Board did not err by determining that Hughes was not under duress when he signed a
stipulation with the Board admitting his actions against the complaining patient were
unprofessional).
¶3 In this case, Hughes asserts that his hospital privileges were wrongfully revoked.
He alleged seven claims in his complaint based in contract, negligent and intentional tort,
defamation, and deprivation of constitutional rights, and sought damages against both St.
2
James and the Medical Staff. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of
the Defendants.
¶4 Hughes argues extensively that the peer review statute, § 37-2-201, MCA, is
unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to him. He offers truncated arguments in
support of each of the seven counts of his complaint, asserting the District Court erred by
granting summary judgment to the Defendants on those claims. He also argues the
District Court erred by reviewing certain documents generated during the peer review
process.
¶5 It is unnecessary to address Hughes’ arguments challenging the constitutionality of
the peer review statute. The District Court noted that Hughes failed to provide the
Attorney General with timely notice of his constitutional challenge, Boettcher v. Mont.
Guar. Fund, 2006 MT 127, ¶ 11, 332 Mont. 279, 140 P.3d 474, and Hughes’ conduct was
unprofessional as a matter of law and violated the governing bylaws and Ethical and
Religious Directives of the Hospital. Hughes I and II. The Hospital thus possessed
discretion to revoke Hughes’ staff privileges. North Valley Hosp. v. Kauffman, 169
Mont. 70, 544 P.2d 1219 (1976). The Medical Staff acted pursuant to the role provided
to it by the bylaws on behalf of the Hospital and not as an unaffiliated association.
Hughes was provided notice of the allegations of unprofessional conduct, had an
opportunity to be heard, and enjoyed the assistance of counsel. Even though Hughes
asserts that the Defendants acted with malicious intent, the Hospital nonetheless had the
3
discretion to remove Hughes from the Medical Staff based upon his stipulation that he
acted unprofessionally.
¶6 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003,
amending Section I.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us
that the appeal is without merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District
Court correctly interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District
Court.
¶7 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
4