Corporate Negligence Doctrine Reigned in By Trial Courts

The Supreme Court has not spoken on the reach of the corporate negligence doctrine since Thompson.



But in Shannon v. McNulty, PICS Case No. 98-2184 (Pa. Super. Oct. 5, 1998) Orie Melvin, J. (22 pages), the Superior Court extended the Thompson decision to apply the corporate negligence doctrine to health maintenance organizations.



The intermediate appeals court based its decision in Shannon on the reasoning that HMOs can be providers of healthcare services and not just payers for services.



“In adopting the doctrine of corporate liability the [Supreme] Court recognized ‘the corporate hospital’s role in the total health care of its patients,’” Judge Joan Orie Melvin wrote. “Likewise, we recognize the central role played by HMOs in the total health care of [their] subscribers.”



But less than two weeks after the Superior Court handed down Shannon, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District declined to apply the doctrine to an optometrist’s office.



Senior Judge Louis H. Pollak said in Milan v. American Vision Center, PICS Case No. 98-2226 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 1998) Pollak, S.J. (9 pages), that the corporate negligence doctrine had thus far been limited to hospitals and HMOs because of their unique “gatekeeping” roles in the total health care of their patients.



“Optometrists’ offices play no such role in patients’ lives,” Pollak wrote. “Like doctors’ offices in general, a patient entering an optometrists’ office does not forfeit – legally or practically – the ability to turn elsewhere for medical care.”

Common Pleas Cases

By and large, trial courts confronted with the issue have likewise limited the application of the corporate negligence doctrine to hospitals.



In the most recent cases, common pleas judges declined to extend its reach to doctors’ groups and clinics. The courts relied on the reasoning in Milan in making their decisions.



In Dowhouer v. Judson, PICS Case No. 00-0662 (C.P. Dauphin March 10, 2000) Lewis, J. (10 pages), Alice M. Dowhouer became a patient of the Cardiovascular Surgical Institute – a medical group – on a referral from her family physician for diagnosis and treatment of peripheral vascular disease in her legs.



As a result of what Dowhouer alleged was careless and negligent medical treatment, she had undergone an above-the-knee amputation. She filed suit against several doctors and CSI.



CSI filed a preliminary objection, claiming that the plaintiff could not sustain a corporate negligence claim against a non-hospital entity.



A three-judge panel of the Dauphin County Common Pleas Court agreed that the doctrine does not apply to “physician practices.”



“This court agrees with Milan‘s analysis,” Judge Richard A. Lewis wrote.



“[The Milan] court concluded that, unlike the emergent medical situations in Thompson, ‘a visit to an optometrist’s office generally does not require a patient to commit to a single corporate health care provider as a matter of medical necessity,” the court said. “Similarly, the facts in the instant case do not indicate that plaintiff was required to commit to a single health care provider for treatment of her heart or the circulation in her legs. … Additionally, CSI did not play the central role in the total health care of plaintiff.”



In the second case, Brewer v. Geisinger Clinic Inc., PICS Case No. 00-0686 (C.P. Lackawanna March 31, 2000) Cottone, S.J. (10 pages), Theresa Brewer underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy performed by Dr. Gehred Wetzel, of the Geisinger Clinic.



Shortly after the surgery, Brewer began to experience elevated temperatures and various gastrointestinal symptoms as a result of what was later determined to be a leak consistent with colon rectal perforation, “a large abscess and partial dehiscence (splitting open) of the cervical and vagina cuff.”



Brewer and her husband filed claims against the clinic, alleging corporate negligence. The clinic filed preliminary objections.



“Although our appellate courts have extended corporate liability to hospitals and HMOs, they have not, as yet, been confronted with whether it should be extended to clinics,” Judge S. John Cottone said.



Cottone noted that Lackawanna County Judge Carmen Minora in Dibble v. Penn State Geisinger Clinic Inc., PICS Case No. 99-1509 (C.P. Lackawanna June 27, 1999) Minora, J. (30 pages). “was confronted with the same issue.”



“After examination of the appellate courts’ rationale for applying corporate liability to hospitals and HMOs, Judge Minora concluded that despite a clinic’s involvement in the delivery of health care to a patient, it ‘cannot be considered a comprehensive health care center such as a hospital, nor can it be construed to play a central role in the total health care of its subscribers,’” Cottone said.



Since a clinic is only a “primary care facility,” as opposed to a “comprehensive medical care facility,” Minora declined to extend coporate negligence to that entity.



“This court, although not required, adopts our honorable colleague’s analysis of corporate liability as it relates to clinics,” Cottone concluded.

Prior Cases