Jack, a middle-aged man, arrived at the Childs Hospital Emergency Department complaining of chest pains, shortness of breath and light-headedness. The emergency physician ordered tests which revealed the patient had substantial blockage in several coronary blood vessels. Jack's cardiologist, Timothy G. was on call and determined that angioplasty with insertion of a stent was the best treatment for him which had to be performed on an emergency basis. Before surgery began, James C. a surgical tech and member of the surgical team, observed that Timothy G. appeared to be moving slowly, was slurring his speech and had difficulty with his surgical gloves. Fearing he may have been drinking, James C. attempted to persuade Timothy G. to postpone the surgery. Timothy G. became visibly upset, verbally abusive and pushed James C. against the wall. Timothy G. continued with the surgical procedure but ordered James C. out of the OR and permanently off the surgical team. The surgery was successful and Jack's recovery uneventful. In the interim James C. reported the incident to hospital administrators who conducted an internal investigation, convening a Peer Review committee to review the actions of Timothy G. At the hearing, Timothy G. denied he had been intoxicated, stating he had been suffering from fatigue, but offered no other evidence. The committee found evidence of intoxication insufficient, but that Timothy G. had violated the hospital's policy prohibiting disruptive behavior and assaults against employees. Based on the findings and recommendation of the Peer Review Committee, the hospital suspended Timothy G.'s privileges for a period of sixty (60) days and reported the incident to the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC). Timothy G., in turn, appealed the suspension to the Administrative Review Board. Based on the foregoing, in a written memorandum 2-3 pages in length, outline: 1. Whether the hospital was justified in suspending Timothy G. and 2. Any ethical or legal principles the Administrative Review Board may consider in determining Timothy G's appeal.