Posts Tagged ‘Institutional Negligence’

Court Upholds Verdict Against Hospital for Negligent Credentialing

Friday, April 17th, 2009

negligent credentialing il Court Upholds Verdict Against Hospital for Negligent CredentialingIn a case of “first impression”, an Illinois appellate court upheld a jury verdict against Silver Cross Hospital in Joliet, for “negligent credentialing”  by allegedly appointing and re-appointing a podiatrist despite the fact that he did not meet the requisite criteria for receiving certain privileges.  Frigo v. Silver Cross Hospital and Medical Center, 876 N.E.2d 697 (1st Dist. 2007).

The doctrine of “negligent credentialing” is a form of “institutional negligence” by a hospital.  Hospitals owe a duty of care to their patients, separate and distinct from the duty of care owed by doctors to their patients, and a hospital’s independent breach of that duty can give rise to a claim of “institutional negligence.”

In “negligent credentialing” actions, plaintiffs allege that a hospital was negligent in granting staff privileges to a physician who did not meet the requirements for such privileges.  Liability is based on the duty of care owed by the hospital to its patients, independent of any duty owed by the physician.

In Frigo, the podiatrist performed a bunionectomy surgery on the plaintiff at Silver Cross Hospital, even though the plaintiff had an infected ulcer on her foot at the time of the operation.  As a result, the plaintiff developed an infected ulcer and, eventually, the plaintiff’s foot had to be amputated.  The plaintiff settled her medical malpractice lawsuit with the podiatrist, and proceeded to trial against the hospital.

The jury found, and the appellate court upheld, that the podiatrist should not have been granted Level II surgical privileges because he did not meet the required criteria either at the time of his appointment or reappointment.  The appellate court upheld the jury’s award.

Top medical malpractice attorneys in Illinois should consider whether a cause of action for “institutional negligence” or “negligent credentialing” exist, independent from a typical cause of action against a medical professional or institution (based on agency) for medical malpractice.

Hospital’s Institutional Negligence

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008

hospital061113 3 560 300x200 Hospitals Institutional Negligence

An Illinois Appellate Court, in Longnecker v. Loyola University Medical Center, recently reversed a trial court’s order and reinstated a $2.7 million jury verdict against Loyola University Medical Center.  The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, Carl Longnecker, filed a Chicago medical negligence lawsuit against Dr. Sirish Parvathaneni and Loyola Medical Center, after Mr. Longnecker died following an unsuccessful heart transplant, in which he received a diseased “hypertrophic heart.”

Although the jury fond in favor of Dr. Parvathaneni and Loyola on the professional negligence claim, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on her theory that Loyola committed “institutional negligence” by failing to ensure that Dr. Parvathaneni understood his role as a procuring surgeon.  It awarded the plaintiff $2.7 million.

After trial, the trial court found the verdict in favor of Dr. Parvathaneni to be “irreconcilable” with the verdict against Loyola, and therefore vacated the verdict against Loyola, leaving the plaintiff with nothing.  The Appellate Court reversed.

In medical malpractice cases, a hospital may face liability under two separate and distinct theories:  (1) vicarious liability for the medical negligence of its agents or employees; and (2) liability for its own institutional negligence.  In a professional negligence case, the standard of care requires the defendant to act with the same degree of knowledge, skill and ability as an ordinarily careful professional would exercise under similar circumstances.

“Institutional negligence” involves an analogous standard of care; a defendant hospital is judged against what a reasonably careful hospital would do under the same circumstances.  Unlike typical medical malpractice cases, the institutional negligence of hospitals can be determined without expert testimony in some cases.

In an institutional negligence case, a hospital owes a duty to its patients to exercise reasonable care in light of apparent risk.  In Longnecker, the “apparent risk” was that a donor heart with significant hypertrophy would be accepted for transplantation.  In order to avoid this risk, Loyola had a duty to ensure that each member of the heart transplant team was fully aware of his role in evaluating the donor heart for transplantation.

However, according to the plaintiff, Dr. Parvathaneni was not informed of his role to evaluate the donor heart after harvesting, not simply examining the heart while in the donor.  Had he performed a physical examination of the donor heart after the heart was removed, he would have found “significant hypertrophy” of the heart.  The Court found that the jury was free to draw the conclusion that the transplant surgeon would not have implanted that heart had he known of the hypertrophy.

The Court held the verdicts were not inconsistent, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded for further proceedings — meaning that the plaintiff should have her $2.7 million jury verdict reinstated.