2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

is a failure to report changes in a patient’s condition and/or toquestion a physician’s orders which is not in accord with standardmedical practice and the patient is injured as a result, the hospitalwill be liable for such negligence.Id. at n.13.The Welsh court did not require a showing of “systemic” negligence by the hospitalDefendant in order to establish corporate liability.In Krapf v. St. Luke’s Hospital, 4. A.3d 642 (Pa. Super 2010), the plaintiffs, on behalf ofthe estates of five (5) decedents, filed wrongful death and survival actions against the defendanthospital. By way of background, a critical care unit (“CCU”) nurse employed by the defendanthospital raised suspicion of harming patients by administering various intravenous medicationswithout authorization. Id. at 645. A nursing manager initially investigated the situation afterused and unused medications were found in a trash receptacle. Id. The hospital’s attorneyinvestigated. Id. During his investigation, employees raised concern about Nurse Cullen, but theattorney completed his investigation without interviewing Nurse Cullen or identifying the culprit.Id. Additional used and unused medications were found two (2) days later in another location.Id. The hospital’s risk manager informed the attorney and advised him that Nurse Cullen may beto blame. Id. The attorney confronted Nurse Cullen and, despite denying the allegations, NurseCullen resigned. Id. at 645-646. The hospital’s attorney investigated into whether any patientswere harmed by the improperly administered medications and, based upon his investigation,apparently was confident that no patients were harmed. Id. at 646. Despite the attorney’sfindings, various nurses raised concerns about an unusually high number of patient deaths duringNurse Cullen’s shift to the attorney, as well as the hospital’s Clinical Care Coordinator and theCCU Nursing Manager. Id. at 646-647. Their concerns apparently were met with resistance andultimately ignored. Id. at 647.Approximately a year and a half later, Nurse Cullen was fired when his new employerhad suspicion of inappropriate patient care. Id. In response to questioning by police, NurseCullen confessed to killing a number of patients, including the plaintiffs’ decedents. Id. Theplaintiffs subsequently filed suit against the hospital, alleging inter alia, corporate negligence.The hospital moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by thestatute of limitations. Id. at 648. The motion was denied. Id. The hospital appealed. Id.In affirming the denial of summary judgment, the Superior Court addressed thesufficiency of the plaintiffs’ corporate negligence claims. The Superior Court noted that[c]orporate negligence is a doctrine under which the hospital is liable if itfails to uphold the proper standard of care owed the patient, which is toensure the patient’s safety and well-being while at the hospital. Thistheory of liability creates a nondelegable duty which the hospital owesdirectly to the patient. Therefore, an injured party does not have to rely onand establish the negligence of a third party.64