Malpractice in Hospitals: Ten Theories for Direct Liability

J. Douglas Peters; Jeanette C. Peraino

doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.1984.tb01784.x

Malpractice in Hospitals: Ten Theories for Direct Liability

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2021

J. Douglas Peters and

Jeanette C. Peraino

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

When a medical malpractice injury occurs in a hospital, the hospital is often sued under the theory that it is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, through the doctrine of respondeat superior. Depending on the facts of the case and the laws of the state, however, the hospital may also be directly liable to the patient. Establishing the direct liability of the hospital where the facts will not support a vicarious claim may ensure for the plaintiff an adequate “deep pocket” in cases where the physician is inadequately insured. In addition, direct liability carries a longer statute of limitations.

Imposing liability on hospitals, whether vicarious or direct, encourages hospitals to oversee physicians’ competence.

Type: Article
Information: Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 12 , Issue 6 , December 1984 , pp. 254 - 259

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1984.tb01784.x [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: © 1984 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Wertham, B., Medical Malpractice Law; How Medicine is Changing the Law (Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.) (1984) at 8 (liability of employer predicated on the fact that employee's actions are intended to advance interests of employer).Google Scholar

Darling v. Charleston Community Hospital, 211 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1965). See Southwick, A., The Hospital's New Responsibility, Cleveland Marshall Law Review 17(1): 146, 151–52 (January 1968) (corporate negligence differs from respondeat superior because it imposes on hospital nondelegable duty owed directly to patient and disregards details of doctor-patient relationship).Google Scholar

See Louisell, I.D. Williams, H., Medical Malpractice (Matthew Bender, Inc., New York, N.Y.) (1974) at chap. XIII (discussion of statutes of limitations in malpractice).Google Scholar

211 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 946 (1966).Google Scholar

211 N.E.2d at 261.Google Scholar

Southwick, A., The Hospital as an Institution—Expanding Responsibilities Change Its Relationship with the Staff Physician, California Western Law Review 9(3); 429, 429 (Spring 1973); Curran W. J., A Further Solution to the Malpractice Problem: Corporate Liability and Risk Management in Hospitals, New England Journal of Medicine 310(11): 704–05 (March 15, 1984).Google Scholar

Southwick, , supra note 6; see also Lisko, R. K., Hospital Liability Under Theories of Respondeat Superior and Corporate Negligence, UMKC Law Review 47(1): 47 (Fall 1978); Note, Hospital Corporate Liability: An Effective Solution to Controlling Private Physician Incompetence, Rutgers Law Review 32(2): 32 (July 1979) (discussion and general background of the doctrine of corporate negligence).Google Scholar

See Southwick, A., Hospital Liability: Two Theories Have Been Merged, Journal of Legal Medicine 4(1): 4, (March 1983) (discussing vicarious and direct liability theories). See also Southwick, supra note 6.Google Scholar PubMed

186 S.E.2d 307, 309 (Ga. App. 1971) aff'd, 189 S.E.2d 412 (Ga. 1972); see also Corletto v Shore Memorial Hospital, 350 A.2d 534, 538 (N.J. Super, 1975) (hospital owes patient duty to admit only competent physicians to staff privileges and remove known incompetents from cases when problems become obvious); Ferguson v. Gonyaw. 236 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. App. 1975) (hospital has duty to use due care in the selection of staff physician).Google Scholar

Joiner, supra note 9, at 308.Google Scholar

Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital, 294 N.W.2d 501, 506-10 (Wis. App. 1980), aff'd, 301 N.W.2d 156 (Wis. 1981).Google Scholar

294 N.W.2d at 505.Google Scholar

Pedroza v. Bryant, 677 P.2d 166 (Wash. 1984).Google Scholar

Id. at 170.Google Scholar

Id. at 172.Google Scholar

Gonzales v. Nork, No. 228556 (Cal. Super Ct., Sacramento City 1973), rev'd on other grounds, 131 Cal. Rptr. 717 (Cal. App. 1971).Google Scholar

Elam v. College Park Hospital, 183 Cal. Rptr. 156 (Cal. App.), modified, 133 Cal. App.3d 94a (1982). See. also Bost v. Riley, 262 S.E.2d 391, 396 (N.C. App. 1980) (hospitals have a duty to make a reasonable effort to monitor and oversee the physicians practicing in the hospital); Purcell v. Zimbelman, 500 P.2d 335, 341–42 (Ariz. App. 1972) (hospital liable for surgery department's inability to supervise competence of staff doctors); Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 495 P.2d 605, 606–07 (Nev.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 879 (1972) (hospitals have a duty to review and delineate staff privileges).Google Scholar

183 Cal. Rptr. at 161.Google Scholar

Id. at 165.Google Scholar

Principles of Hospital Liability, Hospital Law Manual (Aspen Systems, Rockville. Md.) (1983) §3-1.Google Scholar

Emory University v. Porter, 120 S.E.2d 668, 670 (Ga. App. 1961).Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Hernandez v. Smith, 552 F.2d 142 (5th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar

Id. at 144.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id. at 145, quoting Medical & Surgical Memorial Hospital v. Cauthorn, 229 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949).Google Scholar

Darling, supra note 2, at 257 (regulations, standards and bylaws perform same function as evidence of custom). See also Johnson v. St. Bernard Hospital, 399 N.E.2d 198, 205 (Ill. App. 1975) (a hospital's bylaws are evidence of the standard of care); Johnson, supra note 11, at 510 (hospital's incorporation of state administrative code into hospital bylaws admissible to show compliance).Google Scholar

Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, 1983 (Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, Chicago, Ill.) (1982) at 80 (Standard II).Google Scholar

See Darling, supra note 2, at 257.Google Scholar

Id. at 257.Google Scholar

Kakligian v. Henry Ford Hospital, 210 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Mich. 1973)Google Scholar

Id. at 467.Google Scholar

See Keene v. Methodist Hospital, 324 F. Supp. 233 (N.D. Ind. 1971).Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id. at 234–35.Google Scholar

Id. at 235.Google Scholar

Accreditation Manual, supra note 28, at 80.Google Scholar

Polischeck v. United States, 535 F. Supp. 1261 (E.D. Pa. 1982).Google Scholar

Id. at 1263. See Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 63 §421.3 (1983) (unlawful for any physician's assistant to render medical care and services except under the supervision and direction of the supervising physician).Google Scholar

Polischeck, supra note 38, at 1270–71.Google Scholar

Ravenis v. Detroit General Hospital, 234 N.W.2d 411 (Mich. App. 1975).Google Scholar

Id. at 414.Google Scholar

Accreditation Manual, supra note 28, at 79.Google Scholar

Hamburger v. Henry Ford Hospital, 284 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. App. 1979).Google Scholar

See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann § 691.1502 (1983) (exemption for physicians, nurses and other hospital employees from liability when voluntarily assisting in an emergency situation).Google Scholar

Id. at 158.Google Scholar

See Vogel, J. Delgado, R., To Tell The Truth: Physician's Duty to Disclose Medical Mistakes, U.C.L.A. Law Review 28(1): 28 (October 1980) (discussion of imposing a duty to disclose malpractice on physicians and on the entire treatment team).Google Scholar

Krueger v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 305 N.W.2d 18 (N.D. 1981).Google Scholar

Id. at 25.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar