# Garibaldi v. Applebaum

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 26, 2000 · 194 Ill. 2d 438

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739617

## Case

- **Full name:** ABEL GARIBALDI, Appellee, v. ROBERT APPLEBAUM Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 26, 2000
- **Citations:** 194 Ill. 2d 438; 252 Ill. Dec. 29; 742 N.E.2d 279; 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1553; 2000 Ill. LEXIS 1689
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Heiple
- **Judges:** Heiple, Miller, Rathje
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739617

## Opinion text

JUSTICE HEIPLE, specially concurring:
I agree with the court’s disposition of this case. However, I further believe that its underlying analysis may need clarification.
Plaintiff argued to this court, inter alia, that St. Francis Hospital’s exclusive contract with his former partners effectively revoked his privileges to practice at that hospital, giving rise to a right of notice and hearing on that revocation under St. Francis’ bylaws. The majority rejects this assertion, likening the exclusive contract to a hospital’s decision to discontinue an entire field of medical practice. 194 Ill. 2d at 448-51.
My concern is that this analysis, as written, might be read to give carte blanche authority to a hospital to avoid obligations assumed under its bylaws to provide notice and a hearing before revoking a physician’s privileges, simply by entering into exclusive contracts. It is conceivable that, under a different set of facts, a plaintiff doctor might show that an exclusive contract was entered into by the hospital simply to revoke a physician’s privileges, as an end run around the notice and hearing obligations of its bylaws in order to get rid of him.
Except for this caveat, I fully join the majority’s opinion. Because the facts in this particular case do not support an impropriety on the hospital’s part, I agree that plaintiff was not entitled to the notice and hearing procedures provided by the hospital bylaws.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739617. Public record. Not legal advice.