Powell v. Ashland Hosp. Corp. (Summary)

NEGLIGENT HIRING/SUPERVISION/VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Powell v. Ashland Hosp. Corp., Nos. 2012-CA-002019-MR, 2012-CA-002073-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2014)

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant-hospital and against a plaintiff-nurse, and also affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff-nurse against the defendant-physician, in a case in which a physician allegedly kicked a nurse.

The nurse filed a lawsuit against a physician for assault and battery after the physician allegedly kicked her after surgery, and, based on his actions, also filed a claim against the hospital for negligent hiring/supervision, and vicarious liability, among other things, based on the physician’s actions. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, which the nurse appealed, and a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the nurse, which the physician appealed.

For the nurse’s appeal, the appeals court found that her claim against the hospital was barred by the exclusive remedy provision in the Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”) because the record was devoid of any material that the hospital intended for, or engaged in any conduct to encourage, the physician to kick the nurse.

Also, for the nurse’s appeal, the appeals court also found that the hospital was not vicariously liable for the actions of the physician since he was not the hospital’s agent – the nurse did not present any evidence that the physician was acting within the scope of his duties to the hospital when he injured the nurse, which is necessary to establish vicarious liability.

Finally, for the nurse’s appeal, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s limitation of the nurse’s discovery. The trial court performed an in camera review of the physician’s personnel file, disciplinary records and employee grievances, then deemed a portion of the documents discoverable. The nurse claimed on appeal that she was entitled to review the entire file; however, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court performing the in camera review and providing information to the nurse that was relevant to her claims.

The physician appealed, contending that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior bad acts, and that the award of punitive damages was excessive. The appeals court found that the trial court’s admittance of the physician’s prior bad acts was not an abuse of discretion because the physician had placed his mental state in dispute to show that he lacked the intent to kick the nurse. The appeals court also found that there was no record indicating the physician raised the issue of excessive damages in trial court and, therefore, that claim was not properly preserved for review.