Miller v. Warren Hosp. IPA, PA — June 2016 (Summary)

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Miller v. Warren Hosp. IPA, PA
Civ. Action No. 15-7496 (FLW)(DEA) (D.N.J. June 27, 2016)

The U.S. District Court of New Jersey denied a hospital’s partial motion to dismiss concerning a claim of vicarious liability.  The patient alleged that the hospital was negligent in caring and treating the patient’s mother during the patient’s birth. During the outset of the patient’s mother going into labor, employees of the hospital performed a vaginal smear test and determined that she was suffering from Group B Streptococcus (“Group B Strep”). The patient argued that the standard of care was for any mother diagnosed with Group B Strep to undergo antibiotics and/or a caesarian section to prevent the transmission of Group B Strep to the child through a vaginal birth.

The hospital delivered the patient vaginally, which allegedly caused the patient to develop Group B Strep, which, in turn, developed into hydrocephalus.  As a result of developing hydrocephalus, the patient, among other things, suffered cognitive and physical losses, emotional distress, and academic problems.  Further, the placement of a shunt running from his brain to his abdominal cavity prevented him from participating in certain physical activities.  The patient asserted that the attending physician and the hospital caused these injuries by deciding to deliver the patient vaginally without treating the patient’s mother with antibiotics.

The patient initially began the lawsuit in Pennsylvania and alleged only negligence on the part of the attending physician and the hospital.  After the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the patient added a vicarious liability claim against the hospital for not only the attending physician’s actions, but also those of other healthcare providers, who assisted with the delivery of the patient.

The hospital argued that the vicarious liability claim should be dismissed because it was barred by the statute of limitations.  The patient argued that the vicarious liability claim was proper because the allegations in the original complaint put the hospital on notice of the vicarious liability claim.

The court reasoned that because the vicarious liability claim arose from the same set of facts as the original claims against the hospital and doctor, the original claim did give the hospital fair notice that the patient’s claims against it included negligence on the part of any individuals in its employ who treated the patient’s mother during the patient’s birth and not just the attending physician.  Consequently, the court determined that the vicarious liability claim was not barred by the statute of limitations and denied the partial motion to dismiss.