Case Brief

Thompson v. Nason Hospital

Che Callender

Citation:

Thompson v. Nason Hospital

527 PA 330 (1991) 591 A.2d 703

Nature of Case:

After the trial, the Superior Court adopted a theory of corporate negligence connected to
Nason Hospital, the hospital requested permission for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review
the relevance of this theory.

Facts:

Mrs. Thompson was in an automobile car accident and sent to Nason Hospital where she
stayed in the ICU for three days.  On the fourth day, she developed permanent paralysis of the
entire left side of her body from which she never recovered. The Plaintiff sued the defendant,
claiming that her injuries were a direct result of the defendant’s negligence via employees and
agents that failed to properly examine and treat her. The court adopted a theory of corporate
liability and found the defendant liable. The defendant appealed.

Issue:

In order to charge a hospital with negligence, shouldn’t it be proved that the hospital had
actual or constructive knowledge of the defect or procedures that caused the harm?

Is it possible that the negligence of the hospital was a significant factor in bringing about the
harm?

Holding:
 Yes, the Superior Court ruling was affirmed. In order for the hospital to be charged with
negligence, it must be confirmed that the hospital had actual or constructive knowledge of the
defect or procedures that caused the harm to the patient, and the negligence of the hospital must
have been a significant factor in bringing about the harm. There was evidence regarding Nason
Hospital’s negligent supervision of the medical services and medical care that Linda Thompson
was receiving.

Rationale:

The court adopted the doctrine of corporate negligence/corporate liability as a theory of

hospital liability. The corporate negligence doctrine recognizes four non-delegable duties that a
hospital owes to the patient. The four duties include a duty to use reasonable care in the
maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment, a duty to select and retain only
competent physicians, a duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to
patient care, and a duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure
quality care for the patient. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellant
hospital. The court stated that there were issues of material fact concerning whether the appellant
hospital participated in negligent supervision of the appellee patient’s medical care.