ON-CALL LIABILITY

Chau v. Riddle, No. 07-0035 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)

A physician who was the on-call anesthesiologist at a hospital's labor and delivery suite was called upon to administer anesthesia to a patient undergoing an emergency C-section. When one of the twins born during that delivery was having breathing difficulties, the physician was asked to intubate the newborn child. The newborn suffered harm during the intubation and the anesthesiologist was sued. The anesthesiologist claimed that since he was responding to an emergency, he was entitled to immunity under the state's Good Samaritan law. The trial court agreed and granted the anesthesiologist's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the lower court erred in finding that the physician had established the state's Good Samaritan defense. The Texas Supreme Court reasoned that Good Samaritan immunity is subject to certain exceptions, e.g., it does not apply to care administered by physicians working in emergency rooms, physicians who charge for their services, or physicians associated by the admitting or attending physician. The Texas Supreme Court then ruled that because there remained a question of fact as to whether the physician was "a treating physician associated by the admitting or attending physician" in the delivery of the patient's son, the lower court's judgment must be reversed, ruling "there is some evidence that [the physician] was a part of the team administering care to [the patient] and [her son]…[and that,]…[i]n sum, there is evidence that intubating newborns in this situation is part of [the physician's] job as the on-call anesthesiologist in the labor and delivery suites."