Brief Fact Summary. A woman alleged negligent care following surgery by two doctors and also sought to sue the hospital on the theory one of the doctors was negligently credentialed by the hospital.Â The appeals court ruled that Minnesota law precluded such a cause of action against the hospital.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A hospital may be held liable for negligent credentialing decisions.
Issue. May a hospital be held liable for negligent credentialing decisions?
Held. (Hanson, J.)Â Yes.Â A hospital may be held liable for negligent credentialing decisions.Â Negligent credentialing claims brought in Minnesota to enforce a state’s requirement that hospitals exercise reasonable care in granting physician privileges are not barred by the state’s peer-review statute.Â Minnesota law does not prevent recognition of the existing common-law duty that hospitals have to make sure they exercise reasonable care in their credentialing decisions.Â Although the confidentiality provision in the Minnesota peer review statute may complicate making the proof of a common-law negligent-credentialing claim, it does not preclude such a claim.Â The policy considerations underlying the tort of negligent credentialing outweigh the policy considerations shown in the peer review statute because the latter policy considerations are addressed sufficiently by the preclusion of access to the confidential peer review materials.Â Reversed and remanded.
Concurrence. (Barry, J.)Â While the statute plainly contemplates a cause of action against a review organization for negligent credentialing, litigation over negligent credentialing may not improve health care.Â The peer review statute may not be fulfilling the purpose it was intended for.
Discussion. The court notes the issue regarding whether a patient must first prove negligence on the doctor’s part before a hospital can be liable for negligently credentialing the doctor, but does not find this would prevent the patient’s cause of action, stating that “these are questions of trial management best left to the trial judge and that cannot be effectively addressed in the context.”Â However, remember to apply this principle to similar fact patterns on exams.Â In addition, note that this case follows the majority view that a hospital can be negligent for a credentialing decision.