Superior Court Reaffirms that Corporate Negligence Contemplates a Kind of Systemic Negligence in the Actions and Procedures of the Healthcare Facility

Superior Court Reaffirms that Corporate Negligence Contemplates a Kind of Systemic Negligence in the Actions and Procedures of the Healthcare Facility

In Corey v. Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, 2023 PA Super 262 (Dec. 11, 2023), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant a hospital a compulsory non-suit on the plaintiff’s corporate negligence claim.

Joseph Corey (“Decedent”) was emergently transported to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital (“WBGH”) with chest pain and difficulty breathing on August 9, 2013. Approximately twelve (12) hours later, Decedent was transferred to Milton Hershey Medical Center (“MHMC”) where he ultimately died on August 11, 2013.

Mrs. Corey (“Corey”) sued WBGH, alleging negligence, vicarious liability, and corporate negligence. WBGH filed a joinder complaint against Pennsylvania Physicians Services, LLC (“PPS”), the entity WBGH contracted with to provide emergency medicine services in its emergency department, alleging claims for indemnification and contribution.

The matter went to trial, and Corey’s expert witness, Ronald A. Paynter, M.D. (“Paynter”) testified that the WBGH’s emergency department staff were negligent for failing to secure the Decedent’s arterial blood gases, which would have indicated a need to intubate the Decedent to ensure he was receiving adequate oxygenation. Paynter testified that had the Decedent’s airway been protected, he would not have died. After the testimony of all of Corey liability witnesses, PPS moved for a compulsory nonsuit on all claims against it, and WBGH moved for a compulsory nonsuit with respect to the corporate negligence claim. The trial court denied PPS’ motion for a compulsory nonsuit, but granted WBGH’s. Ultimately, the jury determined that neither WBGH’s nurse, nor the PPS’ medical staff were negligent. Corey appealed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the corporate negligence claim to the Superior Court.

On appeal, Corey argued that hospital personnel recognized Decedent’s deteriorating condition, but they failed to take appropriate actions under the circumstances. WBGH’s argued that the record was devoid of evidence of WBGH’s actual or constructive knowledge of the defects or procedures that caused harm to Decedent.

The three elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of corporate negligence are as follows:

1. [the hospital] acted in deviation from the standard of care;
2. [the hospital] had actual or constructive notice of the defects or procedures which created the harm; and
3. that the conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.

Brodowski v. Ryave, 885 A.2d 1045, 1057 (Pa.Super. 2005). A hospital is properly charged with constructive notice when it “should have known” of the patient’s condition. Furthermore, constructive notice must be imposed when the failure to receive actual notice is caused by the absence of supervision. We interpret “failure to enforce adequate rules and policies” as an analog to “failure to provide adequate supervision.” Rauch v. Mike-Mayer, 783 A.2d 815, 828 (Pa.Super. 2001). “In a corporate negligence action against a hospital, the element of actual or constructive notice is critical because the corporate negligence doctrine contemplates a kind of systemic negligence in the actions and procedures of the hospital itself rather than in the individual acts of its employees.” Quoting Ruff v. York Hospital, 257 A.3d 43, 50 (Pa.Super. 2021); see also Edwards v. Brandywine Hosp., 652 A.2d 1382, 1386-87 (Pa.Super. 1995) (where a hospital knows that one of its staff physicians is incompetent but allows that physician practice medicine anyway; or where a hospital should realize that its patients are routinely getting infected because the nursing staff is leaving catheters in the same spot for too long, yet the hospital fails to formulate, adopt or enforce any rule about moving catheters.)

In this case, the Superior Court determined that the evidence submitted at trial centered on the individual decisions and actions of a doctor and nurse in conjunction with their care of the Decedent. The Court concluded that Corey failed to provide any expert testimony that WBGH’S nurse or PPS’ medical care of the Decedent fell below acceptable medical standards to warrant the imposition of constructive notice onto WBGH. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss Corey’s corporate negligence claim.

The Superior Court’s opinion in Corey v. Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, 2023 PA Super 262 (Dec. 11, 2023) can be accessed here.