Daily Blast December 11, 2014

The Washington Supreme Court issued a noteworthy medical malpractice decision this morning in Groves v. PeaceHeath St. Joseph Hosp., Cause No. 89902-9. The primary issue was whether the trial court properly granted the defendant hospital’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law where plaintiff Raymond Grove presented expert medical testimony establishing that the surgeons in charge of his post-operative recovery failed to meet their standard of care. Grove underwent a complex six hour cardiac procedure in 2006. Responsibility for Grove’s post-operative care transferred to a team of rotating surgeons when his primary physician traveled for vacation. Although Grove’s surgery went well, he had a difficult recovery. He eventually developed compartment syndrome, a complication from lengthy surgical procedures, in his left leg. Grove underwent surgery to relieve his compartment syndrome, but it was too late. He suffered necrosis and muscle and other cell death within the compartment, resulting in permanent injury to his left leg. Grove sued the hospital for medical malpractice.

Two experts testified for Grove: orthopedic surgeon Dr. Sean Ghidella and cardiovascular surgeon Dr. Carl Adams. Dr. Ghidella testified that the medical care Grove received fell below the standard of care because of inadequate monitoring and failure to rule out a known possibly post-operation complication. Dr. Adams opined that the cardiovascular surgeon in charge of Grove’s care failed to meet the standard of care of such practitioners and was ultimately responsible “as the captain of a ship.” The trial court instructed the jury on the standard of care applicable to a “physician, surgeon or health care provider.” It further instructed the jury that a “health care provider” included a hospital or an employee or agent of same acting within the course and scope of his/her employment. And that any act or omission of a hospital employee was an act or omission of the hospital. The jury returned a verdict for Grove and awarded $583,000 in damages. The trial court granted the hospital’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling Grove failed to prove breach of the standard of care on the part of any particular hospital employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion, reasoning Grove failed to prove negligence. Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp., 177 Wn. App 370, 312 P.3d 66 (2013). The Supreme Court granted Grove’s petition for review and reversed.

After reiterating the elements of a medical malpractice action under RCW 7.70.010, the Supreme Court reviewed the testimony from Grove’s expert witnesses identifying the surgeon individually negligent and ultimately responsible for Grove’s care. Reaffirming the long-established principles that assessing the credibility of expert witnesses and that weighing that testimony is for the jury to decide, the Court concluded the evidence supported the verdict. Any statement by the trial court or the Court of Appeals that Grove failed to link a specific breach of the standard of care to an individual provider did not comport with the evidence. Additionally, the Supreme Court noted the Court of Appeals’ view that chapter 7.70 RCW “does not contemplate liability for groups of providers” was overly restrictive. Finally, the Supreme Court took the Court of Appeals to task for failing to follow Hansch v. Haskett, 190 Wash. 97, 66 P.2d 1129 (1937) (despite conflicting evidence, the jury could validly find a hospital liable under the rule of respondent superior) even though the case was decided before 7.70 RCW became effective in 1976. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that it had not overruled Hansch or held the case abrogated by the statute. Accordingly, Hansch remains viable so long as the express requirements of 7.70 RCW are also met. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded to the trial court with direction to reinstate the jury verdict in favor of Grove.