Mantooth v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross

Mantooth v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross,
No. A01A2276 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2002)

A patient sued the American Red Cross, a hospital, two individual doctors,
and two nurses, alleging claims of professional negligence, ordinary negligence,
and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress after she was
given a blood transfusion from a donor who has lived in a region of Africa where
a rare, undetectable strain of HIV was known to exist. The trial court granted
the defendant Red Cross’s motion to open a default judgment that had been entered
against it, due to a delay in responding to the plaintiff’s complaint, and likewise
entered a grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the hospital.

The Georgia Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, based on the
testimony of a Red Cross employee explaining the reason for the delay in responding
to the plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court’s decision was also proper, ruled
the appeals court, because the Red Cross offered to plead instanter and attached
an answer to its motion to open default. Finally, it announced that it was ready
to proceed to trial and set up a meritorious defense through its answer.

The appeals court also held that the patient failed to demonstrate actual exposure
to HIV. Therefore, the Red Cross was entitled to summary judgment on her claims
of ordinary and professional negligence and negligent and intentional infliction
of emotional distress.

Finally, the appeals court determined that the hospital was not vicariously
liable for the doctors’ conduct, as these doctors were not hospital employees,
but independent contractors. The hospital did not control the time, manner,
or method of their patient care. Moreover, there was no evidence to hold the
hospital vicariously liable for the doctors’ conduct based on an apparent agency
theory, since the hospital did not hold the doctors out as its agents, and the
patient did not justifiably rely on any such representation by the hospital.