Nursing Negligence in Collaborative Practice: Legal Liability in California

National Joint Practice Commission, Definition of Joint or Collaborative Practice in Hospitals (September 1977); Joint Practice in Primary Care: Definitions and Guidelines (September 1977); Statement on Nursing Staffs in Hospitals (September 1977).

Definition of Joint or Collaborative Practice in Hospitals, supra note 1.

National Joint Practice Commission, Guidelines for Establishing Joint or Collaborative Practice in Hospitals (1981).

Primary nursing involves the collaboration of individual nurses and physicians in the care of each patient. Both caregivers are known to the patient, are on 24-hour call and are jointly accountable for care of that patient. See National Joint Practice Bulletin 2:4 (1976).

Guidelines, supra note 3.

Sermchief v. Gonzales, 660 S.W.2d 683, 690, n. 6 (Mo. banc 1983).

E.g., Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Mohammad, 586 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 924 (1979).

Sermchief, supra note 6, at 684.

Naisbitt J. Megatrends (Warner Books, New York, N.Y.) (1984) at xxvii.

Chalmers-Francis v. Nelson, 57 P.2d 1312, 1313 (Cal. 1936).

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2725 (1939).

Id. § 2726.

Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners, 366 P.2d 816, 820 (Cal. 1961).

Chalmers-Francis, supra note 10, at 1313.

Magit, supra note 13, at 819–20.

Id. at 820.

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2725 (West Supp. 1984).

Id.

Id. (italics supplied).

Id.

Id.

Id. (italics in the original).

Sermchief, supra note 6.

Id. at 690.

Rev. Stat. Mo. § 335.0168 (b) (1975).

Sermchief, supra note 6, at 689.

Board of Registered Nursing, Standardized Procedures (rev. April 1984) (available from BRN, 1020 N. Street, Sacramento, CA 95814) [hereinafter referred to as BRN Policy].

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2051 (West Supp. 1984).

BRN Policy, supra note 27, at 3.

Id.

Id.

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2038 (West Supp. 1984).

BRN Policy, supra note 27, at 3.

Cal. Admin. Code tit. 22, R.70706 (a) (1983).

Id. R. 70706.1 (a).

Id. R. 70706.2 (a)(1).

Id. R. 70706(c) (1). As a result of these provisions, the facility may be liable under corporate negligence theory for the negligent supervision and selection of nurses functioning in an expanded role.

Cal. Admin. Code tit. 22, R.70706 (b) (1983) (requiring administrator, nursing director, and an equal number of physicians and nurses).

Id. R. 70706(c)(1)–(4).

Id. R. 70706(c), R. 70706.2(3) (b) (3).

Id. R. 70706.2(3) (b) (2).

Id. R. 70706.2(b) (4); Cal. Admin. Code tit. 16, R. 1474(b) (4).

Cal Admin. Code tit. 16, R. 1474 (b) (5) (1983); Cal. Admin. Code tit. 22, R. 70706.2(b) (5) (1983).

BRN Policy, supra note 27, at 2.

Cal. Admin. Code tit. 16, R. 1474 (b) (1983).

Id. R. 1474(b) (7).

Id. R. 1474(b) (8).

Id. R. 1474(b) (9).

Id. R. 1474(b) (10–11).

See, e.g., Chalmers-Francis, supra note 10, at 1313; Prosser W. , Handbook on the Law of Torts (West Publishing Co., St. Paul Minn.) (1971) § 32, at 164.

Czubinsky v. Doctors Hosp., 188 Cal. Rptr. 685, 687 (Cal. App. 1983).

Prosser , supra note 56, § 36, at 190.

Sermchief, supra note 6; Fraijo v. Hartland Hosp., 160 Cal. Rptr. 246 (Cal. App. 1979); Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 175 Cal. Rptr. 177 (Cal. App. 1981).

Cooper v. Nat'l Motor Bearing Co., 288 P.2d 581, 586-87 (Cal. App. 1955).

Goff v. Doctors General Hosp. of San Jose, 333 P.2d 29, 32-33 (Cal. Appl. 1958).

Id. at 31.

Czubinsky, supra note 57, at 687.

Sermchief, supra note 6, at 690.

Lustig v. The Birthplace, No. 83-2-07528-9 (Washington Kings County Super. September 19, 1983) cited in ATLA Law Reporter 27(2): 27 (March 1984).

Fraijo v. Hartland Hosp., 160 Cal. Rptr. 246, 253 (Cal. App. 1979).

Manion v. Tweedy, 100 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. 1960).

Valentine v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., 15 Cal. Rptr. 26, 33 (Cal. App. 1961), disapproved on other grounds, Silverson v. Weber, 22 Cal. Rptr. 337 (Cal. 1962).

Annot., 35 A.L.R.3d 349, 358–60, citing Sinz v. Owens, 205 P.2d 3, 8 (Cal. 1949).

Marchese v. Monaco, 145 A.2d 809, 817 (N.J. 1958).

See, e.g., Latson v. Zeiler, 58 Cal. Rptr. 438 (Cal. App. 1967); Oldis v. La Societe Francaise de Bienfaisance Mutuelle, 279 P.2d 184, 186 (Cal. App. 1955).

See Shannon v. Ramsey, 193 N.E.2d 235, 236–37 (Mass. 1934); Morrill v. Komasinski, 41 N.W.2d 620, 624 (Wisc. 1950).

Cf. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 317 P.2d 170,179 (Cal. App. 1957); Simons v. Northern P.R. Co., 22 P.2d 609, 613 (Mont. 1933).

Rodgers v. Canfield, 262 N.W. 409, 410 (Mich. 1935).

Josselyn v. Dearborn, 62 A.2d 174, 182 (Me. 1978).

Prosser, supra note 56, § 132, at 164.

Gugino v. Harvard Community Health Plan, 403 N.E.2d 1166, 1167 (Mass. 1980). The court did not address the merits of the case but instead reviewed the medical malpractice tribunal's ruling that the plaintiff's offer of proof was insufficient and a bond was necessary to proceed in litigation.

See Webb v. Jorns, 473 S.W.2d 328, 336 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971), reversed on other grounds, 488 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. 1982).

Fraijo v. Hartland Hosp., 160 Cal. Rptr. 246 (Cal. App. 1979).

Id. at 252. See Cooper, supra note 60, at 587.

Fraijo, supra note 79, at 251, n.7.

Id. n.8.

Id.

Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 175 Cal. Rtpr. 177 (Cal. App. 1981).

Id. at 192, n. 6. The trial court also instructed the jury as to the standard of the professional nurse.

Id. at 192.

Id.

Amicus Brief at 5, California Coalition of Nurse Practitioners, Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, Civ. No. 18349 (Cal. filed 1983).

Cf. Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School District, 177 P.2d 279, 283 (Cal. 1947) (act performed in violation of an ordinance or statute is presumptively an act of negligence).

Prosser, supra note 56, §36 at 195.

119 Cal. Rptr. 571 (Cal. App. 1975).

Id. at 574.

See Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, R.287(b) (1983) (requiring medications and treatments be administered as prescribed). But see Leahy v. Kenosha Mem. Hosp., 348 N.W.2d 607 (Wis. App. 1984) (hospital did not violate Wisconsin NPA and was not negligent per se even though persons caring for plaintiff were not registered nurses within the meaning of the act; prime thrust of statute was to regulate nursing profession, not to protect the public).

Restatement (Second) of Torts §§285, 286; Prosser, supra note 56, § 36, at 190.

Lustig, supra note 65.

Sermchief, supra note 6, at 690.