Victor Genchi, M.D., Appellant, v. Appellees. (2010)

_

Thereafter, a three-day hearing was held on Dr. Genchi's Motion for Temporary Injunction.   The evidence presented at the hearing indicates that Dr. Genchi failed to comply with the seven-year rule, although he was aware of the rule and given opportunities to satisfy the requirements of the rule.   However, there is a dispute as to whether the Executive Committee was provided with the Rules and Regulations and the Policies and Procedures prior to making its initial recommendation to the Board of the Medical Center to deny renewal of Dr. Genchi's medical staff privileges.   There is, however, no dispute that in September 2009, members of the Executive Committee were not aware of the exceptions to the seven-year rule when recommending that the Board not renew Dr. Genchi's staff privileges, and that upon learning of the exceptions, the Executive Committee recommended that the Board reinstate Dr. Genchi's medical staff privileges, but the Board declined to do so.

Following the hearing, the trial court denied Dr. Genchi's Motion for Temporary Injunction.   The trial court found that the first prayer for relief was moot because the documents have been provided.   As to the second prayer for relief, the trial court found that the first part was moot because the Executive Committee already had reconvened.   As to the second part-compelling the Medical Center's Board to meet and reinstate Dr. Genchi's staff privileges-the trial court found that Dr. Genchi failed to meet his burden of establishing entitlement to a preliminary injunction.   The trial court found that there was no likelihood of irreparable harm because Dr. Genchi remains licensed to practice medicine in Florida, he is currently engaged in the practice of medicine, and his financial problems predate the loss of his staff privileges.   The trial court also found that there was an adequate remedy at law because Dr. Genchi is seeking $12,500,000 in damages.   Next, the trial court found that Dr. Genchi failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because, based on the testimony and evidence, the trial court was not persuaded that:  Dr. Genchi was denied due process;  the Medical Center's Board lacked the authority to decline to reinstate Dr. Genchi's staff privileges;  the Board rejected the Executive Committee's recommendation to reinstate without good cause;  or there was a Sunshine Law violation that rendered the defendants' actions with respect to Dr. Genchi null and void.   Finally, the trial court found that the consideration of public interests do not weigh in Dr. Genchi's favor.   Dr. Genchi's non-final appeal followed.

On appeal, Dr. Genchi challenges the trial court's denial of his Motion for Temporary Injunction.   As we conclude that Dr. Genchi failed to establish the prerequisites for entry of a temporary injunction, we affirm the order under review.

“A trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court's decision.”  Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So.2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Jackson v. Echols, 937 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006));  see also Cohen Fin., LP v. KMC/EC II, LLC, 967 So.2d 224, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a request for a temporary injunction, we must affirm unless the appellant establishes that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion.”).   The party seeking the temporary injunction must establish the following:  (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm if the temporary injunction is not entered;  (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law;  (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;  and (4) entry of the temporary injunction will serve the public interest.   See Biscayne Park, LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 34 So.3d 24, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010);  Foreclosure FreeSearch, Inc. v. Sullivan, 12 So.3d 771, 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009);  Colonial Bank, N.A. v. Taylor Morrison Servs., Inc., 10 So.3d 653, 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009);  Lennar Homes, L.L.C. v. v. Ventures, LLC, 988 So.2d 660, 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008);  Bay N Gulf, Inc. v. Anchor Seafood, Inc., 971 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).   If the party seeking the temporary injunction fails to establish any of these requirements, the party's motion for temporary injunction must be denied.

With respect to the first requirement, we conclude that Dr. Genchi failed to establish irreparable injury.   The record demonstrates that, although Dr. Genchi's medical staff privileges were not renewed by the Medical Center, he remains licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, and his claimed financial difficulties predate the loss of his medical staff privileges.

As to the second requirement, we conclude that Dr. Genchi has an adequate remedy at law-monetary damages.   In fact, in Count III of his complaint, he is seeking monetary damages exceeding $12 million.   With respect to the fourth requirement, we conclude that he failed to establish that the public interest considerations weigh in his favor as the record demonstrates that the Medical Center has successfully recruited physicians to replace Dr. Genchi.

And lastly, as to Dr. Genchi's likelihood to succeed on the merits, we note that even if the exceptions to the seven-year rule are applicable to Dr. Genchi, the Board was not required to make an exception and renew Dr. Genchi's medical staff privileges.  M.S. 1.13(IV)(4) of the Medical Center's Policies and Procedures provides:

4. In the event a physician is not board certified, [the Medical Center] may make an exception providing one of the following criteria is met:

a. Physician demonstrates successful Board Certification within 7 years of their initial appointment, or

b. Physician documents practice of medicine in the local community where they reside for a minimum of ten years;  or

c. [The Medical Center] determines that there is a lack of participating board certified physicians in the area [the Medical Center] desires to serve.

d. Physicians who are not Board Certified must provide two Peer References who are Board Certified in the same practicing specialty.

e. The provider has continuously been a member of the [Medical Center] Medical Staff since prior to July 1, 1996.

(emphasis added).   Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Dr. Genchi's Motion for Temporary Injunction.

Affirmed.