Nanavati v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital
New Jersey Supreme Court
526 A.2d 697 (1987)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Dr. Robert Sorensen was an internist who was also the chief cardiologist, chairman of the department of medicine, and a member of the board of governors at Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital (Burdette) (defendant). At one point, Sorensen was the primary doctor responsible for reading electrocardiograms (EKGs) at Burdette. Sorensen earned approximately $75,000 annually just from reading these EKGs. Then Dr. Suketu Nanavati (plaintiff) joined Burdette. Nanavati was a board-certified cardiologist. Nanavati and Sorensen got into a dispute about who should get to read EKGs at Burdette. The dispute escalated in various ways. Although it was undisputed that Nanavati did not do anything that harmed patient care in any way, there were allegations that he was disruptive and uncooperative with other staff members in violation of a Burdette bylaw requiring all staff members to work in harmony. Burdette formed several committees to review the allegations and eventually revoked Nanavati’s privileges to work at Burdette. Nanavati sued Burdette, arguing it had not followed its own bylaws before revoking his privileges. The court agreed and ordered Burdette to follow its bylaws. Burdette engaged in more review and then confirmed its revocation of Nanavati’s privileges. Nanavati sued again. Applying different standards of review, the trial and appellate courts both ruled that Burdette’s findings did not justify revoking Nanavati’s hospital privileges. Burdette appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pollock, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
