Herrington v. Gaulden

294 Ga. 285 (Ga. 2013) · Supreme Court of Georgia · November 25, 2013

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed a Court of Appeals decision that had allowed a professional-negligence claim against an emergency-department medical director based on alleged failure to supervise staff training. The court held that the usual doctor-patient privity requirement applied, that Gray v. Vaughn did not extend to the medical director's role, and that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(a) did not apply because the alleged failure to supervise did not affirmatively increase the risk of harm. The court addressed only professional negligence and left undisturbed the ruling concerning ordinary negligence.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the Court
Blackwell, Justice; All the Justices
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Decision date
November 25, 2013
Procedural posture
The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' reversal of summary judgment for Dr. Herrington on the professional-negligence claim.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed under the applicable legal standards; the Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' legal determination concerning the existence and application of a professional-negligence duty.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia and binding Georgia precedent.
Parties
Herrington v. Gaulden
Disposition
reversed

Topics

medical malpracticeprofessional negligenceduty of careappellate procedurestandard of care

Practice areas

medical malpracticeprofessional negligencehealth lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a medical director who did not treat the decedent owed her a professional-negligence duty based on alleged failure to supervise staff training.
  2. Whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(a) applied when the alleged failure to supervise did not affirmatively increase the patient's preexisting risk of harm.
  3. Whether Gray v. Vaughn required recognition of a duty based solely on responsibility to supervise emergency-room staff.

Holdings

  1. In a medical-malpractice action, doctor-patient privity is ordinarily essential to establish the physician's legal duty, and the circumstances alleged did not establish an applicable exception imposing a professional-negligence duty on Dr. Herrington.
  2. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(a) does not apply unless the defendant's alleged negligence affirmatively increases the injured person's risk of harm; a mere failure to reduce or abate an existing risk is insufficient.

Key quotations

Section 324A (a) applies only to the extent that the alleged negligence of the defendant “exposes the injured person to a greater risk of harm than had existed previously.” (287)
Liability... does not attach for failing to decrease the risk of harm. (287-288)
As such, there is no evidence that he affirmatively increased the risk of harm to patients such as Gaulden, and Section 324A (a) does not apply. (288)

Factual background

Deloris Gaulden suffered cardiac arrest and died in the emergency department of Liberty Regional Medical Center. Her daughter alleged that Gaulden could have been saved if her treating physician and nurse had promptly and properly implemented the hospital's chest-pain protocol. Dr. Herrington, the emergency-department medical director, allegedly failed to ensure that the physician and nursing staff were adequately trained regarding the protocol, but he did not treat Gaulden and lacked authority to control or direct the manner and method of her treating providers' care.

Procedural history

Gaulden's daughter sued Dr. Herrington, the medical director of the hospital emergency department, alleging negligent supervision of physician and nursing staff training concerning a chest-pain protocol. The trial court granted summary judgment to Dr. Herrington. The Court of Appeals reversed insofar as the claim sounded in professional negligence, relying on Gray v. Vaughn and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(a). The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals and left undisturbed its ruling concerning ordinary negligence.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…