Suing a Pennsylvania Hospital for Corporate Negligence

Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice – Corporate Negligence

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court first recognized a medical entity’s direct liability for medical negligence, based on a theory of corporate negligence, in a case captioned Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1980).  The Court in Thompson recognized that a hospital has a duty to:

(1) use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment;

(2) select and retain competent physicians;

(3) oversee all persons who practice medicine within the hospital’s walls; and

(4) formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality patient care.

Corporate Negligence

If a hospital breached one or more of these duties, the hospital can be held directly liable (as opposed to only being held vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, agents or ostensible agents).

The theory of “corporate negligence,” sometimes also referred to as “direct” or “systemic” negligence, is not just applicable against hospitals.  Indeed, in the years since Thompson v. Nason, Pennsylvania Courts have expanded the theory, permitting lawsuits against various non-hospital entities for their systemic negligence.

The corporate negligence theory of liability announced in Thompson v. Nason Hospital was explicitly extended to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in 1998 in a case called Shannon v. McNulty, 718 A.2d 828 (Pa. Super. 1998). Then, in 2009, the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that a medical professional corporation could be held directly liable for corporate negligence in a case called Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., 978 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 2009).

The most recent Supreme Court case addressing corporate negligence in a healthcare setting is Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012).  In Scampone, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that imposing liability for corporate negligence in a healthcare setting is not limited to hospitals and/or HMOs. Rather, the Supreme Court in Scampone stated:

[A] defendant is not categorically exempt from liability simply because appellate decisional law has not specifically addressed a theory of liability in a particular context. Categorical exemptions from liability exist … only where the General Assembly has acted to create explicit policy-based immunities, e.g., to protect the public purse. Where either no immunity exists, or the legislative branch created exceptions to an immunity legislatively conferred, the default rule of possible liability operates.

Proving A Claim for Corporate Negligence Against a Pennsylvania Hospital

An experienced medical malpractice attorney will need to do a thorough investigation in order to bring a successful corporate negligence claim against a hospital.  As an initial matter, corporate negligence claims, like any medical malpractice claim, require the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof in order to prevail.  As with any medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff who brings a corporate negligence cases must prove four elements:

• That the hospital owed the patient a duty of care.
• That the hospital breached its duty of care.
• That the hospital’s breach caused or increased the risk of plaintiff’s injury; and
• The plaintiff did in fact suffer a physical injury.

Establishing a duty of care, especially in an inpatient setting, is usually not difficult.  However, developing and proving a theory that the hospital was negligent and that it caused harm are often quite challenging. One common way to establish that a hospital was negligent would be to prove that the hospital failed to adopt or enforce critical policies and procedures related to providing care to patients and the absence of these policies and procedures resulted in an injury.  Alternatively, sometimes hospitals do create adequate policies and procedures for patient care, but never train their nurses or doctors on those procedures.  Of course, even the best procedure for patient care is useless if it just sits on a shelf.  Hospitals cannot satisfy their duty to patients by simply adopting policies and procedures, they need to train their staff to follow those policies and procedures.

Contact Cohen, Placitella & Roth with Your Medical Malpractice Claim

Medical malpractice causes pain and suffering for the victim and their loved ones—and victims deserve compensation.

Our team of medical malpractice lawyers champions and seeks justice for our clients, guided by a shared goal of doing what’s right and making a positive lasting impact on their lives. If you have a question or would like to consult with us on your medical malpractice claim, please don’t hesitate to contact our lawyers to handle your case today.