Franz v. Ashland Hosp. Corp (Summary)

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NEGLIGENT CREDENTIALING

Franz v. Ashland Hosp. Corp., No. 2009–CA–002269–MR (Ky. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2014)

Following injuries sustained by a patient during CABG surgery, and the patient’s death 16 months later, a suit was brought against a number of physicians, including the surgeon who performed the CABG, and the hospital where the surgery was performed.  In the medical malpractice case, the jury found that the surgeon had not failed to meet the standard of care.  Thereafter, the court granted summary judgment to the hospital.  The trial court had also dismissed a claim for medical battery against the surgeon before the trial.

The court of appeals upheld the dismissal of the claim for medical battery against the surgeon and the dismissal of the claims against the hospital.  Specifically, the court of appeals concluded that the claim for medical battery failed because the patient had not proven a complete lack of consent (i.e., she consented to the CABG surgery and she consented for the surgeon to perform the surgery).  In this case, the claim for battery was based on the fact that the surgeon’s privileges at the hospital were expired when the procedure was performed.  The court of appeals refused to create a “new route for a lack of consent claim” based on a lack of privileges.

The court of appeals also upheld the dismissal of the claims against the hospital.  The court found that, absent liability on the part of the surgeon, the hospital could not be liable to the patient, even though it had failed to follow its own rules, protocols, and policies.  According to the court, there was no causal connection between the patient’s injury and the hospital’s misstep in failing to follow its own rules.

The court of appeals also upheld the trial court’s order which precluded testimony pertaining to the surgeon’s “so-called mental illness.”  Since the standard of care for physicians is an objective standard, evidence of a physician’s subjective state of mind is irrelevant.  As the court noted, “despite a physician’s ‘less than optimal mental and emotional condition,’ if the physician’s ‘actual treatment of a patient reflects the appropriate degree of care,’ he or she ‘cannot be held liable in negligence.’”