OLYMPIA, Wash. (Legal Newsline) - Hospitals may be liable for the actions of contractor physicians working in their emergency rooms, the Washington Supreme Court ruled, reversing the dismissal of a case involving a woman who died after an ER doc allegedly failed to diagnose flesh-eating bacteria in her shoulder.
Citing massive changes in medical practice since malpractice law first developed, the state Supreme Court said hospitals can no longer escape liability simply because the doctors working on their premises are outside contractors.
“The relevant common law, of course, developed before current conditions existed,” the court said in an April 11 decision. “As so often happens, we must decide how those common law principles apply to these new conditions.”
The family of Cindy Essex sued Samaritan Hospital after she died of necrotizing fasciitis less than 24 hours after being admitted to the hospital’s emergency room complaining of unbearable shoulder pain. The plaintiffs claimed Dr. Christopher Davis, a contract physician, ordered x-rays and a CT scan and diagnosed a gastric obstruction but failed to catch the infection in her shoulder.
Essex was transferred to Central Washington Hospital on the recommendation of a gastroenterologist, where another doctor observed bruising on her arm and ordered a surgeon to investigate, when the infection was discovered. Essex died soon thereafter.
A trial court dismissed claims of corporate negligence and vicarious liability based on the actions of Samaritan’s nurses. The plaintiffs appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of corporate negligence in an opinion by Justice Steven Gonzalez.
Washington licensing laws and regulations require hospitals to provide “all patients access to safe and appropriate care” in their emergency rooms. This establishes a nondelegable duty under the theory of ostensible agency, the court ruled.
“Although hospitals may delegate the performance of this duty to nonemployee doctors, the ultimate duty—and thus the potential vicarious liability for the failure to meet that duty—remains with the hospital,” the court concluded.
The court declined to decide whether the hospital was also potentially liable under agency law, which holds employers liable for the actions of their agents. The court did uphold the dismissal of claims the hospital had corporate negligence for the actions of its own nurses, ruling there was no evidence the plaintiff’s treatment would have been different if they had informed the ER doctor about their observations of the woman’s condition.