Hospital Corporate Liability: The Trend Continues

See, e.g., Bing v. Thunig, 143 N.E.2d 3 (N.Y. 1957); Foster v. Englewood Hospital Ass'n, 313 N.E.2d 255 (Ill. 1972).

See, e.g., Hundt v. Proctor Community Hospital, 5 Ill. App. 3d 987 (1972); Johnson v. St. Bernard Hospital, 399 N.E.2d 198 (Ill. 1979).

See, e.g., Payne, Recent Developments Affecting a Hospital's Liability for Negligence of Physicians, 18 South Texas Law Journal 367 (1977).

Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 211 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1965), cert. denied 383 U.S. 946 (1966).

The probable reason for this is that in Darling the Supreme Court of Illinois never specifically held that the physician treating the student was an agent or employee (either expressly or constructively) of the defendant hospital. See, e.g., Lundahl v. Rockford Memorial Hosp. Ass'n, 235 N.E.2d 671 (Ill. App. 1968); Stogsdill v. Manor Convalescent Home, Inc., 343 N.E.2d 589 (Ill. App. 1976).

See, e.g., Fiorentino v. Wenger, 227 N.E.2d 296 (N.Y. 1967); Mauer v. Highland Park Hospital Foundation, 232 N.E.2d 776 (Ill. App. 1976) (in dicta, hospital may be liable for careless or imprudent selection of staff); Purcell v. Zimbelman, 500 P.2d 335 (Ariz. 1972); Joiner v. Mitchell County Hospital Authority, 186 S.E.2d 307 (Ga. 1971); Corleto v. Shore Memorial Hospital, 350 A.2d 534 (N.J. 1975).

Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital, 294 N.W.2d 501 (Wisc. App. 1980).

Id. at 505.

Id. at 506.

Id.

Id.

Id. at 513.

The court observed that Misericordia should have known of the restrictions placed on Dr. Salinsky's practice by other Milwaukee hospitals, and that one hospital had denied him staff privileges, and that ten malpractice suits had been filed against Dr. Salinsky at the time he applied for clinical privileges. Id. at 520.

Id. at 518.

Id.

Id. at 519.

Id. at 520.

The court also dismissed the hospital's argument that, if the operation had not occurred at Misericordia, it would have happened elsewhere, because Misericordia was unable to prove that Dr. Salinsky could have performed the operation elsewhere due to the severe limitations on his privileges at other Milwaukee hospitals. Id. at 522–23.

Id. at 523.

Bost v. Riley, 262 S.E.2d 391 (N.C. App. 1980).

Bing v. Thunig, supra note 1.

Bost v. Riley, supra note 19, at 396.

Id. The court cited [1] “the duty to make a reasonable inspection of equipment it uses in the treatment of patients and remedy any defects discoverable by such inspection …, [2] [the duty to] provide equipment reasonably suited for the use intended …, [3] the duty not to obey instructions of a physician which are obviously negligent or dangerous…, [4] [the duty to] promulgate adequate safety rules relating to the handling, storage, and administering of medications …, and [5] to adequately investigate the credentials of a physician selected to practice at the facility.” Id. at 396 (citations omitted).