Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
During the week of August 17, 2007, the Minnesota appellate courts released opinions on the following topics that may be of interest to our clients:
1.
Common Law Torts - Negligent Credentialing - Hospital Liability
2.
Child Abuse Reporting Act, Minn. Stat. § 626.556 - Hospital/Physician Liability
1. COMMON LAW TORTS - NEGLIGENT CREDENTIALING - HOSPITAL LIABILITY
-
Minnesota law recognizes the tort of negligent credentialing, under which a hospital may be held liable for granting privileges to a physician.
Plaintiff underwent gastric bypass surgery and subsequently developed complications. Plaintiff sued both the physician performing the surgery and the hospital, alleging that the hospital had been negligent in credentialing the physician. The district court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss and held that Minnesota recognizes a professional tort against hospitals for negligent credentialing/privileging of a physician. The district court then certified the legal question to the court of appeals.
The court of appeals held that Minnesota does not recognize a common law cause of action for negligent credentialing. The Minnesota Supreme Court accepted further review and reversed, holding that Minnesota law allows a patient to sue a hospital for negligently credentialing a physician. Given its previous recognition of a hospital’s duty of care to protect its patients from harm by third persons and in light of the analogous torts of negligent hiring and negligent selection of an independent contractor, the Court held that under Minnesota law the tort of negligent credentialing is the natural extension of well-established common law rights. The Court also relied on decisions from other jurisdictions that have recognized the common law tort of negligent credentialing.
The Court further noted that a cause of action for negligent credentialing is not precluded by Minnesota’s peer review statutes. While peer review materials and information are confidential under the peer review statutes, the Court held that hospitals may present the information considered by the credentialing committee as long as it could be obtained from original sources. The Court determined that because § 145.64 does not preclude presentation of evidence in defense of a negligent credentialing claim, the confidentiality provision is not unconstitutional. The Court also held that the peer review statutes essentially codify the common law ordinary negligence standard which imposes liability only where the defendant acts unreasonably based on information that it knew or had reason to know at the time. While the Court recognized that issues may arise regarding possible bifurcation of the trial, the scope of the confidentiality and liability provisions of the peer review statute, and whether a patient must first prove a physician negligent before imposing liability on the hospital, the Court determined these issues were better left to the trial courts to develop on a case-by-case basis.
Larson v. Wasemiller, Minnesota Supreme Court, Nos. A05-1968 and A05-1701, August 16, 2007.
[Bassford Remele, A Professional Association, represented amicus curiae Minnesota Hospital Association, Minnesota Medical Association and American Medical Association in this appeal.
2. CHILD ABUSE REPORTING ACT, MINN. STAT. § 626.556 – HOSPITAL/PHYSICIAN LIABILITY
- The Child Abuse Reporting Act, Minn. Stat. § 626.556, does not create civil liability for failure to report suspected child abuse.
-
There is no special relationship between the hospital and the child where the hospital did not accept custody of the child, and the child was harmed outside of the hospital by persons over whom the hospital had no control.
-
Plaintiffs may assert medical malpractice claims based on a hospital’s alleged failure to report suspected child abuse.
The adoptive parents of a child abused by her biological father brought suit against the hospital alleging that the hospital failed to prevent ongoing abuse. The child was taken to the hospital on three occasions. On the third visit the child was diagnosed with Shaken Baby Syndrome. Plaintiffs later sued the hospital, alleging negligent failure to report suspected child abuse, failure to have hospital policies that required compliance with mandatory reporting requirements, and failure to monitor hospital staff to assure compliance with reporting of suspected child abuse. The hospital moved to strike these three allegations. The district court granted the hospital’s motion and excluded all evidence at trial related to the hospital’s reporting of child abuse to outside authorities. Following a two-week trial, the jury found the hospital was negligent, but that the negligence was not a direct cause of the child’s injuries.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court arguing that: (1) exclusion of the reporting evidence improperly abolished their common law claim that the hospital breached its duty to report the abuse; (2) the hospital had a common law duty to protect the child because a special relationship existed; and (3) the jury’s causation verdict was based on errors of law. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review of three issues: (1) whether the Child Abuse Reporting Act (“CARA”) creates a cause of action for failure to report suspected abuse; (2) whether a hospital that accepts responsibility for treating a child owes that child a special duty to protect her from future harm; and (3) whether there is a common law cause of action for failure to report suspected child abuse in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that CARA does not create civil liability for failure to report suspected child abuse. The Court explained that its decision in Radke v. County of Freeborn, 694 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. 2005), holding that a civil cause of action exists for failure to investigate after a report of child abuse is made, is consistent with the conclusion here. The court found that the statutory language of § 626.556 is unambiguous in imposing criminal liability for failure to report suspected child abuse. Although the Court determined that the child in this case was vulnerable, it held there was no special relationship with the hospital that would give rise to a duty to protect the child because the harm suffered by the child was suffered outside the hospital at the hands of a third-party beyond the hospital’s control. Finally, the Court held that the lower courts had erred in excluding all reporting evidence and remanded for a new trial, finding that plaintiffs had presented a prima facie case of medical malpractice. In addition, the Court held that CARA’s reporting requirements are admissible as evidence that a physician of ordinary skill who suspects that a patient is the victim of child abuse will report the suspected abuse to authorities.
Becker v. Mayo Foundation, Minnesota Supreme Court, No. A05-45, August 16, 2007.
[Bassford Remele, A Professional Association, represented amicus curiae Minnesota Hospital Association, Minnesota Medical Association, American Medical Association, Minnesota Orthopaedic Society, American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Emergency Physicians and American Academy of Pediatrics, Minnesota Chapter in this appeal.]
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, |
Writer this Week: |