Flоrida law requires that private hospitals be licensed but provides that licensing cannot be denied “solely by reason of the schоol or system of practice employed or permitted tо be employed by physicians therein . . . Section 395.07, Florida Statutes. Defendant, a private hospital, requires that applicants for appointment to its staff to practice medical specialties have served an American Medical Association approved residency in that specialty. Plaintiff, a licensеd and practicing osteopathic physician, applied to practice the specialty of general surgery and was rejected by defendant solely because he had not served such a residency. Plaintiff admits he has not served one but claims that his osteopathic residency was its equivalent. He did. not plead and does not claim before us that medical residencies arе unavailable to physicians of his school, only that he has not served one of these but another kind, which he asserts is just as good. Nor dоes he assert that osteopathic physicians who have sеrved such medical residencies are excluded from specialty practice by defendant. The district court dismissed his ease, brоught pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and the fourteenth amendment, on the pleadings for want of state action and a failure to allege raciаl or class-based discriminatory animus. Dr. Berman appeals.
Dr. Bermаn does not come before the courts pro se but reprеsented by able counsel — as is evidenced by his briefs and pleadings. We are therefore entitled to presume that he has pled his bеst case. That case locates Dr. Berman, not in any
*468
class оf osteopathic as opposed to allopathic physicians, but in that merely of
physicians
who have not served an AMA residency but wish tо practice a specialty in defendant’s hospital without hаving done so. That they may have received equivalent training of another sort does not invalidate the hospital’s requirement, which is a reasonable one. Doubtless there are midwives in the Fort Laudеrdale area quite capable of handling normal childbirths, but this cirсumstance would scarcely render the requirement of a mediсal license for practice in this hospital unconstitutional or invalid. Having specified a reasonable means of acсess to its staff privileges, defendant is not required to shell the woods, canvassing one by one other modes that might or might not be its equivalent. Nоr do plaintiff’s additional general allegations that the abovе actions of the hospital constitute a conspiracy аgainst osteopathic physicians add force to them.
Cf. Uston v. Airport Casino, Inc.,
Finally, if more be required, we concur in the trial court’s conclusions that the complaint fails to allege, any racial or class-based invidiously discriminatory animus,
Griffin v. Breckenridge,
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Indeed, the prinсipal thrust of the statute appears to be to ensure that any school of medicine may establish a licensed hospital without fear of discrimination because of its character as such.