explaining that a hospital owes patients “a duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care” and “a duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the patients.”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a hospital owes patients “a duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care” and “a duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the patients.”
- concluding failure to recognize and report abnormalities in treatment and condition of patient constitutes negligence
- suggesting no viable difference between respondeat superior and ostensible agency liability
- corporate hospital owed patient non-delegable duty of care to enforce consultation and patient monitoring policies
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, 618 Pa. 363 (2012)
But, appellants state, the Thompson decision is inapposite because the decision was limited, creating a cause of action only against hospitals.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The opinion of the majority adopts an entirely new concept of liability, i.e., “corporate liability,” to be applied to hospitals in order to hold them liable as guarantors of the quality of care afforded by independent staff members. “Corporate liability” is totally distinct from the theory of respondeat superior. It is also to be distinguished from liability based upon ostensible agency.
In adopting this new theory of liability, the majority is making a monumental and ill-advised change in the law of this Commonwealth. The change reflects a deep pocket theory of liability, placing financial burdens upon hospitals for the actions of persons who are not even their own employees. At a time when hospital costs are spiraling upwards to a staggering degree, this will serve only to boost the health care costs that already too heavily burden the public. Traditional theories of liability, such as respon *344 deat superior, have long proven to be perfectly adequate for establishing corporate responsibility for torts.
Further, in recognizing “corporate liability,” there is no logical basis upon which to limit this extension of liability to hospitals alone. Rather, all corporations, regardless of their lines of business, will be assertedly responsible for the torts of their independent contractors. Fearfully, such extensions of liability could well follow from the present decision.
In short, I would reverse the order of the Superior Court and thereby reject the theory of corporate liability. The order of the Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of Nason Hospital was proper, since the alleged tortfeasors were not shown to be agents or employees of the hospital.
NIX, C.J., joins the dissenting opinion.