2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

The Thompson court set forth the following four duties that a hospital owes directly to itspatients:1. The duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe andadequate facilities and equipment;2. The duty to select and retain only competent physicians;3. The duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine withinits walls as to patient care; and4. The duty to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules andpolicies to ensure quality care for patients.Id. at 707. To succeed on a claim of corporate negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) thatthe hospital had either actual or constructive knowledge of the defect or procedures thatcaused the harm; and (2) that the hospital’s negligence was a substantial factor inbringing about the harm.(ii)Requirement of KnowledgeIn Edwards v. Brandywine Hospital, 652 A. 2d 1382 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995), Plaintiffclaimed that the hospital’s lab notification procedures were deficient. The Court found that thehospital had notification procedures in place and that Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence“that a reasonable hospital” would require a different notification procedure.The Superior Court explained that the Thompson theory of corporate liability would notbe triggered every time something went wrong in a hospital which harms a patient. The courtreasoned that acts of malpractice occur at the finest hospitals, subjecting the hospitals to liabilityunder theories of respondent superior or ostensible agency. Edwards, 652 A. 2d at 1386. Thecourt held that in order to establish corporate negligence, a plaintiff must show more than an actof negligence by an individual for whom the hospital is responsible. Rather, Thompson requires“a Plaintiff to show that the hospital itself is breaching a duty and is somehow substandard. Thisrequires evidence that the hospital knew or should have known about the breach of duty that isharming its patients.” Id. The Superior Court thus affirmed dismissal of those corporate liabilityclaims which Plaintiff was unable to support with evidence of a “systemic negligence” of whichthe hospital either knew or should have known.In Welsh v. Bulger, 548 Pa. 504, 698 A.2d 581 (1997), the Pennsylvania Supreme Courtgranted allocatur to address “what type of evidence is necessary to establish a prima facie claimof corporate liability for negligence against a hospital pursuant to our decision in Thompson . . ..” Id. at 584. The Welsh court explained, quoting Thompson:[I]t is well established that a hospital staff member or employeehad a duty to recognize and report abnormalities in the treatmentand condition of its patients. If the attending physician fails to actafter being informed of such abnormalities, it is then incumbent onthe hospital staff members or employees to so advise the hospitalauthorities so that appropriate action might be taken. When there63