Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Sokol v. Akron General Medical Center

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
173 F.3d 1026 (1999)


Facts

Sokol (plaintiff) was a cardiac surgeon on staff at Akron General Medical Center (Akron) (defendant). The Medical Council at Akron became concerned about a high number of Sokol’s patients dying when they underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The Council established a task force to review the entire cardiac surgery program, lead by Dr. Michael Pine. Pine determined that Sokol’s decision to select high-risk patients for the CABG procedure, which often led to their deaths, warranted review. Thereafter, an ad hoc investigatory committee concluded that Sokol had not adequately screened out high-risk patients and had not taken sufficient precautions to protect patients from having heart attacks just prior and during the CABG procedure. The investigatory committee made recommendations to the Medical Council which would adversely affect Sokol’s clinical privileges. Sokol appeared before the Medical Council when it voted to approve and implement all of the committee’s recommendations. A hearing committee recommended that all of Sokol’s CABG privileges be reinstated. The Medical Council rejected the committee’s decision and reaffirmed its own determination. Under hospital bylaws, Sokol then appealed to a hospital executive committee which affirmed the Council’s decision. Sokol sought injunctive relief in federal district court. A district court magistrate judge agreed with Sokol and held that the notice provided to Sokol was insufficient and that the decision made by the Medical Council was arbitrary. Akron then appealed to the court of appeals.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Norris, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Merritt, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.