Supreme Court Dodges Negligent Credentialing Issue, But Still Helps Healthcare Providers

Published on: 6/25/2005

June 25, 2004

In search of deep pockets, plaintiffs in Virginia continue to assert a number of legal theories against hospitals in medical negligence cases. Such theories include claims of negligent supervision and negligent credentialing. Historically, the Virginia Supreme Court has not recognized the tort of negligent supervision; however, some circuit courts in Virginia have recognized a cause of action for negligent credentialing. For example, certain circuit courts have held that a hospital has a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure the competence of its medical staff and to supervise the care provided in the hospital by staff physicians. Other circuit courts have declined to allow claims for negligent credentialing and supervision.

In a recent decision, the Virginia Supreme Court did not reach the issue of whether a plaintiff may pursue a cause of action against a hospital for negligent supervision or negligent credentialing, thereby leaving the split among circuit courts unresolved. However, the Supreme Court did announce a decision regarding evidence of prior complaints and lawsuits which will be extremely helpful to any healthcare provider who is a defendant in a medical malpractice case.

The decision, styled Carolyn Stottlemyer v. John W. Ghramm, M.D. and Winchester Medical Center, involved allegations that the physician and the hospital breached the standard of care during the performance of a total abdominal hysterectomy. The plaintiff also sued the hospital for alleged negligent credentialing and supervision of the physician defendant.

The trial court held that Virginia law would recognize a cause of action for negligent credentialing. Prior to trial, the hospital moved to sever the plaintiff's claims against it from plaintiff's claims of negligence against the physician. The trial court ruled that plaintiff first would present her case of negligence against the physician, and if the jury found the physician negligent, then plaintiff would be permitted to present her case against the hospital for the alleged acts of negligent credentialing.

At trial, plaintiff sought to cross-examine the physician about certain past acts of the physician unrelated to the case. These acts included allegations of improper alterations of medical records, reprimands by the State Board of Medicine, and past suspension of his medical staff privileges at the hospital. Plaintiff also sought to question the physician about psychiatric treatment he received, and sought to have the psychiatric records admitted into evidence. The trial court refused to permit plaintiff to cross-examine the physician on these subjects.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the physician. In accordance with the jury's determination that the physician was not negligent, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligent credentialing. Plaintiff appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

In its opinion issued on June 10, 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's refusal to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine the physician regarding these alleged prior acts of misconduct and negligence relating to his former patients. The Court also affirmed the well-settled principle that "[e]vidence that a defendant was negligent on a prior occasion simply has no relevance or bearing upon whether the defendant was negligent during the occasion that is the subject of the litigation." The Court noted that the issues before the jury were whether the physician performed an abdominal hysterectomy upon the plaintiff in accordance with the applicable standards of care, and whether the physician obtained the plaintiff's informed consent for that procedure. Thus, the physician's alleged prior acts of misconduct and negligence related to other patients "simply had no relevance to the issues that were before the jury for its consideration."

The Court did not reach the issue of whether the plaintiff had a cause of action against the hospital for negligent supervision or negligent credentialing because the jury found that the physician was not negligent, and thus, the issues were "moot."  Although the Court did not address the issue of negligent credentialing, this ruling holds significance for all health care providers in the context of medical negligence suits. The Court's refusal to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine the physician regarding his alleged prior acts of negligence lends considerable support to objections to discovery regarding previous malpractice suits and the personal medical records of physician defendants.




This was written by: