This week in the Supreme Court -med mal – SOL

Hospital M.D. v. Larry is an interloc. out of Yazoo County. On Tuesday, Jan. 7, this case is being considered by the Ms. S. Ct. Larry was a student at USM who got a flu shot at the USM clinic. She started having problems and was brought to Kings Daughters Hospital in Yazoo City where she was treated and released. The next day she was taken by her mother to UMMC where she was diagnosed with a MRSA infection. She stayed there for three weeks and ended up blind in one eye. Seeking to sue Kings Daughter, the plaintiff sent notice of claim letters to Kings Daughter and the doctor who treated her there. As it turned out, that doctor was an employee of HospitalMD, LLC, which contracted with Kings Daughter to provide emergency care. By the time the plaintiff learned of this and sent a presuit notice to HospitalMD and amended the lawsuit to add it, the time for sending notice and the SOL had run. The trial court denied summary judgment on these issues and the Miss. S. Ct. granted HospitalMD’s interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff is arguing that the SOL should not have run before she discovered that the doctor was not employed by the hospital where he was working. This is an interesting case given the proliferation of these contractual arrangements between hospitals and companies that staff hospitals. The only document available online is HospitalMD’s reply brief.

5 thoughts on “This week in the Supreme Court -med mal – SOL

    • Very unlikely. Short of formal discovery, it is almost impossible to determine who employs a particular physician. Nowadays, physicians are often employed by the hospital, or in the case of an ER doctor, they are independent contractors of a staffing company. The MS Board of Medical Licensure doesn’t include employment information. Hospital websites may list a physician but you cannot tell whether they are employed by the hospital or simply on staff. But in this case, it would seem to me that if the doctor in question was working in the ER at Kings Daughters, the hospital is liable under Hardy, assuming the hospital was properly put on notice.

  1. Pingback: Jan. 7 in the Ms.S.Ct. | Jane's Law Blog

    • Gorton is an unusual case since a physician working in one hospital was actually an employee of another, but in Hardy the court essentially held that regardless of an ER physician’s actual employer, the hospital was legally responsible for the ER physician’s negligence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s