Paulino v. QHG of Springdale (Summary)

NEGLIGENT CREDENTIALING

Paulino v. QHG of Springdale, Inc., No. 11-26 (Ark. Feb. 9, 2012)

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a decision to grant summary judgment to a hospital system that had been sued for negligent credentialing and vicarious liability for the alleged malpractice of a physician.

The lawsuit was filed after a spine surgeon performed multiple surgeries on the patient, rendering the patient with extreme pain, barely able to move her arms, and unable to walk. The spine surgeon and his group settled, along with another defendant. The only claims that remained were against the hospital for negligently credentialing the spine surgeon and for vicarious liability. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital and the patient appealed.

On appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, the patient argued that the medical malpractice act recognized actions for negligent credentialing and, if not, the court should judicially recognize such actions. The court found that the medical malpractice act covered only decisions to pursue a method of treatment, care, or course of medical action relating to a specific patient. Consequently, negligent credentialing, a decision by the hospital and not a physician regarding specific care, was not recognized therein.
Furthermore, the court found the issues pertaining to credentialing were addressed through a peer review process under the state peer review statute. Thus, the court concluded, a statutory system is already in place for the initial and ongoing review of competence, and the court did not find it necessary to create a new remedy against a hospital for negligent credentialing. Finding that the patient had not requested an existing remedy and refusing to create a remedy for negligent credentialing, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the hospital.