Brief Fact Summary. A hospital was sued by a man who suffered permanent nervous system damage after undergoing surgery at the hospital by a doctor who was not Board certified.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Before a doctor is granted permission to conduct surgery in a hospital, the hospital owes a duty of care to its patients to confirm that a doctor is qualified to perform surgery.
We hold that a reasonable man of ordinary prudence in the position of the hospital owes a duty of care to its patients to ascertain that a doctor is qualified to perform an operation before granting him the privilege to do so.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Before a doctor is granted permission to conduct surgery in a hospital, does the hospital owe a duty of care to its patients to confirm that a doctor is qualified to perform surgery?
Held. (Greene, J.) Yes. Before a doctor is granted permission to conduct surgery in a hospital, the hospital owes a duty of care to its patients to confirm that a doctor is qualified to perform surgery. Defendant agreed to be bound by the standards of JCAHO and therefore, failure to comply with the standards is some evidence of negligence. Defendant argued that it did, in fact, “consider” that Hucks-Folliss was not Board certified; however, the evidence still presents a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. Reversed and remanded.
Discussion. In this case, some evidence is presented by the hospital’s failure to comply with the recommendations of the JCAHO. The court basically adopts the JCAHO’s standards as the negligence standard. On remand, a prudent attorney for the hospital would challenge that holding because, rightly or wrongly, many working physicians are not Board certified.