Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the plaintiff’s negligence claim arising from an alleged assault by police officers in a hospital, holding that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable. The court reversed summary judgment on the battery claim, concluding that disputed facts remained regarding whether the conscious plaintiff consented to a blood draw performed for a nonmedical, law-enforcement purpose. The court also held that the police request did not, on the alleged facts, shield medical providers from potential liability absent actual consent or an applicable statutory protection.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants could be liable for negligence based on allegedly allowing police officers unsupervised access to plaintiff when the alleged attack was not reasonably foreseeable.
- Whether plaintiff's failure to object to a blood draw, without knowledge that it was being performed for a nonmedical law-enforcement purpose, constituted apparent consent sufficient to defeat his battery claim at summary judgment.
- Whether a medical provider is immune from battery liability for drawing a conscious patient's blood at the request of law enforcement without actual consent.
Holdings
- Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's negligence claim because the alleged sudden attack by police officers was not reasonably foreseeable on the evidence presented, and defendants therefore had no duty to protect plaintiff from that attack.
- Plaintiff's failure to object to the nurse's blood draw did not establish apparent consent as a matter of law because disputed evidence existed concerning whether plaintiff knew or should have understood that the blood was being drawn for a nonmedical purpose.
- A patient's general consent to medical treatment does not, as a matter of law, constitute consent to a blood draw performed for a nonmedical law-enforcement purpose.
- When a conscious patient's blood draw depends on actual rather than statutorily implied consent, a police request does not immunize medical providers from potential battery liability for drawing the blood without the patient's consent.
Key quotations
“A factfinder may ultimately draw the same inference as the trial court did here, but may also reach the opposite conclusion.” (193 Vt. at 553-54)
“Plaintiff’s broad consent to medical treatment is different in kind from any purported consent to a blood draw for nonmedical, law-enforcement purposes.” (193 Vt. at 555)
“the police officers’ request does not protect defendants from liability for drawing the blood without plaintiff’s consent.” (193 Vt. at 557)
Factual background
Police took O'Brien to Fletcher Allen Healthcare after an officer shot him during an encounter outside a convenience store. According to O'Brien's affidavit, while he was recovering from emergency surgery, police officers unsuccessfully attempted to take his blood by force after he refused, and nurse Catherine Synnott later drew his blood without explaining that the draw was for a nonmedical law-enforcement purpose. O'Brien alleged that defendants negligently allowed the officers unsupervised access to him and that the blood draw constituted battery.
Procedural history
O'Brien sued Fletcher Allen Healthcare and nurse Catherine Synnott. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, granted defendants summary judgment, concluding that the alleged police assault was not reasonably foreseeable and that plaintiff's failure to object to the blood draw constituted apparent consent. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the negligence claim, reversed it on the battery claim, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The battery claim was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision. Summary judgment for defendants on the negligence claim remained affirmed.