Kelly on Malpractice

In Barkes v. River Park Hospital, Inc., No. M2006-01214-COA-R3-CV, the wife of patient brought medical malpractice action for the wrongful death of her husband who died at home later in the same day that he was examined in the emergency room. The patient had been examined, diagnosed and discharged by a nurse practitioner without being seen by a physician. The only direct claim against the hospital was whether the hospital was liable because a written policy, which required that every patient presented to the emergency room be seen by a physician, was not followed by the health care providers in the Emergency Department. The jury returned a verdict exonerating all of the individual health care providers directly or indirectly involved with the care of the plaintiff’s husband. However, the jury found that the hospital was 100% at fault for his death.

The hospital appealed contending the jury’s verdict must be set aside because it was inconsistent and irreconcilable. Because the jury found that none of the health care providers were at fault, the only basis for upholding the jury’s verdict against the Hospital was upon the doctrine of corporate liability. The Court of Appeals found that Tennessee has not adopted the doctrine of corporate liability. Therefore, the verdict exonerating all individual health care providers of fault and finding the hospital 100% at fault constituted an inconsistent and irreconcilable verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff’s claim of hospital negligence was based upon the doctrine of corporate negligence, which has been used to impose liability on a hospital for the breach of a duty of care owed by the hospital directly to the patient. Under this doctrine, which has been adopted in some states, hospitals owe to patients four types of duties: (1) a duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment; (2) a duty to select and retain only
competent physicians; (3) a duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care; and (4) a duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the patients. Plaintiff contended that the doctrine of corporate negligence had been adopted in Tennessee in Bryant v. McCord, 15 S.W.3d 804 (Tenn. 2000).

The Court of Appeals found that the doctrine of corporate negligence was not expressly adopted in Bryant. Moreover, it was immaterial whether this court impliedly adopted the doctrine in Bryant because the opinion had no precedential value due to the fact the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal and affirmed on grounds other than the doctrine of corporate negligence. In fact, the Supreme Court did not address the doctrine of corporate negligence in its opinion. Because the Supreme Court concurred with the result of the Court of Appeals opinion, but on another ground, the Court of Appeals opinion in Bryant had no precedential value except to the parties in the case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s reliance on the Court of Appeals opinion in Bryant was misplaced.

The Court of Appeals went further to declare that hospitals in Tennessee have certain affirmative duties to their patients. The affirmative duties addressed in other cases, however, were not entirely consistent with the four “rather encompassing duties” that arise under the doctrine of corporate liability. The Court of Appeals was not inclined to adopt the doctrine of corporate negligence in this case.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.