## Facts

- Dr. Samuel L. Bernstein was a member of the Alameda–Contra Costa Medical Association, whose bylaws incorporated the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics and authorized censure, suspension, or expulsion for violations.
- The association found Bernstein guilty of seven ethical violations and expelled him; the California Medical Association absolved him of one charge but otherwise affirmed, and the AMA Judicial Council affirmed on further appeal.
- Bernstein filed a civil action seeking a writ of mandate to restore his membership and damages for injuries allegedly caused by the expulsion.
- The trial court found sufficient evidence to support three charges (commonly described as the Hill, Muir, and Enea matters), found insufficient evidence on three other charges, and denied all relief; the association did not cross-appeal.
- In the Hill matter, Bernstein prepared and circulated a “To Whom It May Concern” report submitted in an administrative proceeding that sharply criticized another physician’s pathology work using disparaging language (e.g., “inexpert,” “inept,” and repeated comments about “inexpertness”).
- The Muir and Enea matters involved additional conduct the association concluded violated the incorporated ethical rules; the trial court upheld those findings as supported by evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the association’s findings that Bernstein violated the incorporated AMA ethical principles in the Hill, Muir, and Enea matters.
2. What scope of judicial review applies to a private professional association’s disciplinary decision made under its bylaws.
3. Whether Bernstein was entitled to mandamus reinstatement and damages based on alleged wrongful expulsion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment denying mandamus and damages.
- The court held that evidence supported at least three ethical violations (Hill, Muir, and Enea) and that expulsion was an authorized sanction under the bylaws.
- The court declined to overturn the association’s discipline because the proceedings were within the association’s rules, supported by evidence, and not shown to be arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally do not interfere with internal discipline imposed by a private, voluntary professional association when the association acts within its bylaws, provides the process promised by its rules, and bases its decision on evidence rather than arbitrary action.
- When a professional association incorporates an ethical code into its bylaws, those standards govern the member-association relationship and may be enforced through the association’s disciplinary mechanisms.
- Mandamus relief is inappropriate to reverse a private association’s disciplinary action absent a showing that the association exceeded its authority, violated its procedures, or acted without evidentiary support; damages predicated on wrongful expulsion fail when the expulsion is upheld.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the medical association’s expulsion of a member for violations of ethical standards incorporated into the bylaws, emphasizing limited judicial review of private association discipline when authorized procedures are followed and supported by evidence.


Bernstein v. Alameda-Contra Costa Med. Ass’n, 139 Cal. App. 2d 241, 293 P.2d 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)