Dr. David Yashon appeals from a summary judgment entered by the district court in favor of Dr. William E. Hunt and forty-two other named defendants. Dr. Yashon brought this аction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to compel defendants to reinstate him to the attending medical staff at the Ohio State University Hospitals in Columbus, Ohio. For thе reasons set forth below, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the district court.
Dr. Yashon is a duly licensed neurologiсal surgeon, a tenured professor of surgery at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, and, from September 1969 to Septembеr 1981, was a member of the attending medical staff at the Ohio State University Hospitals. Although Dr. Yashon had been the subject of several disciplinary investigations instigated by defendant William Hunt, Chairman of the Division of Neurological Surgery, he had been reappointed annually to the attending medical staff. 1 *469 Prior to June, 1981, Dr. Yashon submitted his application for reappointment to the medical staff. On June 18,1981, defendant Dr. Manuel Tzagournis, Dean of the Medical College, informed Dr. Yashon that Dr. Carey had refused to submit Yashon’s name to the Medical Staff Administrative Committee (MSAC) and that, therefore, as of July 1,1981, Dr. Yashon would no longer be a member of the medical staff. 2 Approximately one month lаter, on July 16, 1981, Dr. Yashon brought this civil rights action alleging that the procedure used by the defendants to deny his reappointment violated his fourteenth amendment due process rights. Dr. Yashon sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to compel the defendants to reinstаte him to the medical staff. On July 17,1981, the district court filed a consent order which reinstated Dr. Yashon until his request for a preliminary injunction was resolved.
The district judge later conferred with counsel for both sides, and the parties ultimately agreed to forward Dr. Yashon’s applicаtion to the MSAC for disposition in the same manner as other such applications for reappointment. The judge did not suggest that the MSAC conduct an adversarial hearing in which counsel would be present and witnesses would be called and examined. Instead, he suggested thаt Dr. Yashon and Dr. Carey each make a presentation to the MSAC concerning Dr. Yashon’s application.
Dr. Yashon receivеd two written notices that dealt with the MSAC-meeting. The first such notice was a letter dated August 12, 1981 from Dean Tzagournis that informed Dr. Yashon of the time and place of the meeting. The second notice was a letter dated August 17,1981 from Dr. Michael Whitcomb informing Dr. Yashon of the general format of the meeting. Attached to the August 17 letter was a copy of a letter sent by Dr. Carey to Dean Tzagournis which listed fourteen spеcific charges against Dr. Yashon.
The MSAC meeting took place on September 1, 1981. After Dr. Carey and Dr. Yashon made their opening stаtements, Dr. Carey called and examined thirteen witnesses. Dr. Yashon was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses, but was not given the oрportunity to call any witnesses on his behalf. At the conclusion of the meeting, the MSAC members deliberated and eventually voted thirteen to four to reject Dr. Yashon’s application for reappointment to the medical staff. The defendants moved to vacаte the July 17 consent order and then moved for summary judgment. In an extensive opinion and order, the district court found no due process viоlations arising out of the September 1 hearing, and granted summary judgment for the defendants. Dr. Yashon now brings this appeal, contending that the dеfendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.RCiv.P. 56(c).
The requirements of procedural due process apply only to thе deprivation of constitutionally protected liberty or property interests.
Board of Regents v. Roth,
In this case, the district court did not find that Dr. Yashon had a protected liberty or property interest in his position on the medicаl staff. Instead, it assumed that Dr. Yashon had such an interest in order to reach the plaintiff’s due process arguments. The record, howevеr, is certainly not free
*470
from doubt on this issue.
See Suckle v. Madison General Hospital,
After careful consideration, we will not follow the
Suckle
court’s analysis and assume that Dr. Yashon had a protected liberty or property interest. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the initial inquiry in a due process case of this type is to determine whether the рlaintiff’s interest is in fact within the fourteenth amendment’s protection of liberty and property.
See, e.g., Perry v. Sindermann,
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is Vacated and the case is Remandеd for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Notes
. Ohio Administrative Code § 3335-101-05 provides that “appointments to the medicаl staff shall be for one year, renewable each year in accordance with the reappointment procedure set forth in the medical staff bylaws. Re-appointments to the medical staff will be made *469 annually by the [University Hospitals Board], and shall be for one year.”
. Ohio Administrative Code §§ 3335-101-06(A) and 3335-101-03(B) authorizes the Medical Staff Administrative Committee (MSAC) to make recommendations to the University Hospital Board’s Joint Conference Committee concerning the appointment or reappointment of an applicant to the medical staff. The actual appointing authority is the University Hospitals Board. Ohio Administrative Code § 3335-101-05.