Good day Everyone Here is the assignment I need help with. It may seem a little complicated but I have attached an example and explanation from the professor.  Discuss Respondeat Superior including th

Respondeat Superior

MHA 622: Health Care Ethics & Law

Professor: Dr. K. Cojanu

February 25, 2018

“Respondeat Superior (“let the master respond”) is a legal doctrine holding employers liable, in certain cases, for the wrongful acts of their agents (employees). This doctrine has also been referred to as vicarious lability, whereby an employer is answerable for the torts committed by employees.” (Pozgar, 2012).

The common-law doctrine of Respondeat superior was established in seventeenth century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law (legal-dictionary). This law provides a better chance for an injured party, especially in health care situations, to actually recover damages, because under this law the employer is liable for the injuries cause by an employee who was working on behalf their employer. The legal relationship between an employer and employee is call agency, meaning that the employee is an agent of the employer, and the employer has the right to control what an employee can or cannot do, and must assume some responsibility for the agent’s actions.

An example of Respondeat superior was applied here in the case Tisdale v. Toledo hospital. Gary Tisdale received care in August 2002 following abdominal surgery to correct a draining hernia. Dr. Wright performed the surgery at the hospital, and Dr. Banoub was the anesthesiologist. Both doctors had ordered that external-pressure leg cuffs be used on Tisdale’s legs to prevent blood clots from forming (a condition known as deep vein thrombosis); however, a clot formed nonetheless and travelled to Tisdale’s lungs, where it caused a pulmonary embolism. This resulted in brain damage and blindness. Emergency surgery was performed which relieved the clots, but not before the oxygen deprivation to his brain had caused some degree of permanent cognitive impairment. The Tisdales claimed that the hospital’s nursing staff never put the pressure cuffs on his legs and that this oversight caused Tisdale’s injuries.

In March 2007, before trial, the Tisdales voluntarily dismissed all defendants except the hospital, Dr. Wright, and Toledo Surgical Specialists, Inc. After trial began, the claims against Dr. Wright and Toledo Surgical were dismissed with prejudice, leaving the hospital as the sole defendant. During trial, the Tisdales argued that the hospital’s nursing staff had breached the applicable standard of care by failing to apply the leg cuffs. The case was tried to conclusion, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the hospital. Among several interrogatories submitted to the jury, one revealed its finding that although the hospital was negligent, its negligence was not the proximate cause of Tisdale’s injuries (www.sconet.state.oh.us).

In this case the court ruled against the Tisdales citing the fact that the nurse was not named in the law suit, so the employer could not be responsible for Mr. Tisdale’s injuries. The case was appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court which also ruled in favor of the hospital. I think that this ruling was very unfair to the plaintiffs, in that he was severely injured to the extent of mental injury and blindness.

In some cases the organization may not be responsible if there are independent contractors involved. “The basic rationale for imposing liability on an employer developed because of the employer’s right to control the physical acts of its employee” (Pozgar, 2012).

In March 1998 plaintiff Terry Lathrop, then age 38, was living in Southern California and was treated by three separate physicians from Bay Shores Medical Group after she felt a lump in her breast. Initially, Terry Lathrop was seen by Dr. Jon Friedman, her primary care physician, who ordered an ultrasound. The ultrasound was interpreted by Dr. Mark Diamond, a diagnostic radiologist, who concluded the lump was a benign cyst. Dr. Friedman then referred Terry Lathrop to a surgeon from Bay Shores Medical Group, Dr. Steven Rapaport. Dr. Rapaport reviewed the ultrasound report and examined Terry Lathrop. He believed the lump was a cyst that was too small to aspirate; he did not recommend a biopsy. He recommended annual screening mammograms and monthly self-examinations. Dr. Friedman agreed with Dr. Rapaport's assessment. None of the physicians from Bay Shores Medical Group ordered a diagnostic mammogram.

 During this time period, Bay Shores Medical Group merged with HealthCare Partners Medical Group ("HealthCare Partners”). At trial, the parties stipulated that Drs. Friedman, Diamond, and Rapaport were agents of HealthCare Partners and were acting in the course and scope of their agency when they provided medical services to Terry Lathrop.

 Terry Lathrop and her family moved to Northern California later in 1998, and the roles of Drs. Friedman, Diamond, and Rapaport ended. In August 1998 Terry Lathrop was seen by a new physician, who ordered a mammogram. Dr. Bradus of Diagnostic Imaging Medical Associates prepared the mammogram report. He found several very small masses that he concluded were benign. Terry Lathrop was examined and the mammogram report was evaluated by a surgeon, Dr. Lanflisi, who concluded a biopsy was not warranted.

 Nearly a year later, in June 1999, Terry Lathrop felt a new lump, which was then biopsied and found to be cancerous. Terry Lathrop underwent a mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation. Expert witnesses opined that she would not live more than eight years past the surgery http://www.harp.org/lathrop.htm.

After reading some cases regarding Respondeat Superior, I have noticed that this law can be interpreted in several ways depending on the lawyers, the judge, and how the plaintiffs filed the case. The take away is that before filing Respondeat Superior law suit, care has to be taken to file it correctly, and also include the agents or employees’ names who actually caused the injuries in the law suits, because this could be a point that the defendants would make in trying to get the case dismissed on the grounds that the negligent parties were not named in the law suit. This what happened to the Tisdale’s case which was very unfortunate.

References:

Pozgar, G. (2012).  Legal aspects of health care administration (12th Ed.).  Retrieved February 12, 2018 from   https://content.ashford.edu/Required Resources.

The Free Dictionary by Farlex

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2012/2012-ohio-1110.pdf

Lathrop v. HealthCare Partners Medical Group 
C.A. 1st; 01-21-2004; A098487 114 Cal. App. 4th 1412

http://www.harp.org/lathrop.htm