The California Supreme Court vindicated Dr. Mileikowsky when it affirmed an appellate court decision setting aside the hospital’s governing board decision terminating Dr. Mileikowsky’s hearing and ordering the hospital to convene and conduct a new hearing in accordance with the medical staff bylaws.
The basis of the dispute was a ruling and action by the hearing officer in the original medical staff hearing terminating the hearing on the basis of disruptive and uncooperative conduct by Dr. Mileikowsky, which was affirmed by the hospital’s governing board in accordance with the appeal procedures of the medical staff bylaws.
Dr. Mileikowsky then sought mandamus in civil court, seeking an injunction ordering a new hearing. The trial court denied that petition; the appellate court reversed and remanded; and the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court ruling.
The basis of the decision is that "the hearing officer lacked authority to prevent the reviewing panel from fulfilling its statutory duty to review the peer review committee’s recommendation" based upon both the bylaws and the California statute defining due process.
A copy of the case is attached at the link below.
This case was featured in a Med Law Blog post on December 27, 2007, when we reported that the California Supreme Court would hear the Mileikowsky hearing officer case, which gives you an idea of how long it takes for appellate cases to wind their way through the court system.