LAWNWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
KHALIL A.I. CASSIMALLY, M.D., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mandamus was improper remedy for physician seeking to compel hospital to conduct medical staff officer election where hospital retained authority to control bylaws and veto elections.
Mandamus is not an appropriate remedy for a physician to compel a hospital to conduct a medical staff officer election when the hospital retains authority to control the medical staff bylaws and veto officer elections.
[1] Mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to compel a hospital to conduct a medical staff officer election where the hospital retains contractual authority to control medical…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA physician on the hospital staff sought to compel the hospital to conduct an election meeting to elect medical staff officers according to the medica…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Staff Bylaws cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reversed. We reverse on the grounds that mandamus was not an appropriate remedy. See State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The appellee, a physician on the staff of the appellant hospital sought to compel the appellant to conduct an election meeting of the medical staff in order to elect medical staff officers in accord with the medical staff bylaws. The underlying dispute below involves a decision by the appellant corporation to temporarily appoint medical staff officers in the face of internal political problems which were allegedly proving disruptive to the proper operation of the hospital. It is undisputed on this record that the appellant corporation retains authority to control the medical staff bylaws and to veto the election of medical staff officers. That being so, we do not believe the appellee has demonstrated a clear legal right to compel the election of officers in accord with the preexisting medical staff bylaws. There is, of course, no reason why the medical staff itself cannot meet and elect officers and then have a judicial determination as to which set of officers are entitled to preside. The right to have such a dispute resolved, however, does not mean that a member of the medical staff has the right to invoke the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to resolve the dispute.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.