Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractnegligenceliabilityappealsummary judgment
contractnegligencesummary judgment

Related Cases

Huber v. Hovey, 501 N.W.2d 53, 54 A.L.R.5th 867
View Case »
Qureshi v. Ahmed, 394 Ill.App.3d 883, 916 N.E.2d 1153, 334 Ill.Dec. 265
View Case »
Zehr v. Haugen, 318 Or. 647, 871 P.2d 1006
View Case »
New York Cent. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 84 U.S. 357, 1873 WL 15877, 21 L.Ed. 627, 17 Wall. 357
View Case »
La Rossa v. Scientific Design Co., 402 F.2d 937, 29 A.L.R.3d 1416
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ward v. Lutheran Hospitals & Homes Soc. of America, Inc., 963 P.2d 1031

Facts

Ruth Ward was admitted to Fairbanks Memorial Hospital for the birth of her fourth child and received multiple blood transfusions due to complications. After being diagnosed with hepatitis C, she sued the hospital for negligence in testing the blood and for failing to obtain her informed consent for the transfusions. The treating physicians, who ordered the transfusions, were independent contractors and not hospital employees. The superior court granted summary judgment to the hospital, leading to Ward's appeal.

Ward was treated by her own physician in an emergency room provided for the convenience of the physician.

Issue

Did the hospital have an independent duty to obtain a patient's informed consent for a blood transfusion ordered by a physician who is not an employee of the hospital?

Does a hospital have an independent duty to obtain a patient's informed consent for a blood transfusion ordered by a physician who is not an employee of the hospital?

Rule

A hospital is not liable for a physician's negligence if the physician is an independent contractor selected by the patient, and the hospital does not have a duty to obtain informed consent for procedures ordered by such physicians.

Under either doctrine, a hospital is not liable for a physician's negligence if the physician is an independent contractor selected by the patient.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Fairbanks Memorial Hospital was not liable for the negligence of the treating physicians because they were independent contractors chosen by Ward. The court emphasized that the hospital's role was limited to providing facilities for the physicians to treat their patients, and it did not have a duty to ensure informed consent was obtained for the transfusions ordered by the independent contractors.

Application of this standard to the facts of this case shows that FMH is not liable to Ward.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's summary judgment in favor of Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, concluding that the hospital had no liability for the actions of the independent contractor physicians regarding informed consent.

The superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of FMH is AFFIRMED.

Who won?

Fairbanks Memorial Hospital prevailed in the case because the court found that it had no duty to obtain informed consent from Ward, as the treating physicians were independent contractors and not hospital employees.

The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's summary judgment in favor of Fairbanks Memorial Hospital.

You must be