03.08.2013 Views

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The mere fact a private corporation receives aid from the state in the way of<br />

exemption from taxation <strong>and</strong> by state appropriation toward its support does not<br />

render a hospital a state institution. So when is a state liable for damages in a<br />

hospital? In determining the liability of a governmental unit or agency for torts<br />

committed in connection with the operation of a hospital, most courts, in the absence<br />

of a statute abrogating immunity, make the question depend upon a distinction<br />

between whether the operation of the hospital was governmental, in which case there<br />

is immunity, or proprietary, in which case there is no immunity. This is the same<br />

analysis discussed above in connection with state <strong>and</strong> municipal tort liability.<br />

There is no uniform st<strong>and</strong>ard for determining whether a hospital is operated in<br />

performance of a governmental or proprietary function. The maintenance of a<br />

hospital by a municipality for the purpose of conserving public health <strong>and</strong> treating<br />

indigent patients is generally held to be a governmental rather than a proprietary<br />

function.<br />

Most courts seem also to agree on the proposition that operating a hospital for the<br />

purpose of making a financial profit is the performance of a proprietary function. Yet<br />

most courts also hold that a hospital is not operated for profit merely because it<br />

accepts paying patients, especially where the charges do not exceed the cost of<br />

maintenance. Beyond these general rules of thumb, no useful criteria can be gathered<br />

from the cases.<br />

6. Personal Liability of State <strong>Health</strong> Officials<br />

As for the personal liability of public officials for injuries inflicted within the scope<br />

<strong>and</strong> performance of their official duties, health officers are not personally held liable<br />

for damages, although it is in the employee’s best professional interest not to be the<br />

cause of such litigation. TCAs work under a vicarious liability theory. Therefore,<br />

state employees must act within the limits of their authority for the TCA to apply. If<br />

the TCA applies, the state will be replaced as the defendant <strong>and</strong> pay any damages.<br />

Intentional wrongdoing that is outside the official’s duties, such as criminal conduct<br />

or intentional torts such as false imprisonment, will not be covered by the TCA. If<br />

the TCA does not apply, the state worker will be personally liable for damages.<br />

7. <strong>Public</strong> <strong>Health</strong> Examples<br />

The exceptions to state tort liability have resulted in a vast body of unpredictable<br />

case law amongst the states, so no general rule applies everywhere. Situations where<br />

immunity against tort liability was extended to health officials:<br />

Department of <strong>Health</strong> officials in Vermont received immunity for negligently issuing<br />

a lodging license, based on a vendor’s promise to bring a septic system into<br />

compliance with public health regulations. The decision to issue the license was<br />

deemed discretionary in nature. Johnson v. State, 682 A.2d 961 (1996).<br />

A court ruled that Georgia’s sovereign immunity extended to its counties, <strong>and</strong> that<br />

92

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!