Carter V Hucks-Follis

505 S.E.2d 177 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Dr. Hucks-Folliss performed neck surgery on P at D. Dr. Hucks-Folliss is a neurosurgeon on the medical staff of D. He was first granted surgical privileges by D in 1975 and has been reviewed every two years hence to renew those privileges. He has been on D's staff for over twenty years. The Dr has never been certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery. Presently, he is ineligible for board certification because he has taken and failed the certification examination on three different occasions. The credentialing and re-credentialing of physicians at D is designed to comply with standards promulgated by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). JCAHO provided that board certification 'is an excellent benchmark and is to be considered when delineating clinical privileges.' On the application filed by Dr. Hucks-Folliss, seeking to renew his surgical privileges, he specifically stated, in response to a question on the application, that he was not board certified. D did not consider the lack of certification an issue in the re-credentialing of active staff physicians. As a result of the surgery, P suffered from serious and permanent injuries including quadraparesis (limited use of both arms and legs). Ps sued D. Ps alleged that Defendant was negligent: (1) in granting clinical privileges to Dr. Hucks-Folliss; (2) in failing to ascertain whether Dr. Hucks-Folliss was qualified to perform neurological surgery; and (3) in failing to enforce the standards of the JCAHO. Ps alleged that as a proximate result of D's negligence, P agreed to allow Dr. Hucks-Folliss to perform surgery on him. in Defendant. As a consequence of that surgery, Tommy Carter sustained 'serious, permanent and painful injuries to his person including quadra-paresis, scarring, and other disfigurement.' In the complaint, it is alleged that Defendant was negligent: (1) in granting clinical privileges to Dr. Hucks-Folliss; (2) in failing to ascertain whether Dr. Hucks-Folliss was qualified to perform neurological surgery; and (3) in failing to enforce the standards of the JCAHO. It is further alleged that as a proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Tommy Carter agreed to allow Dr. Hucks-Folliss to perform surgery on him in Defendant. As a consequence of that surgery, Tommy Carter sustained 'serious, permanent and painful injuries to his person including quadra-paresis, scarring, and other disfigurement.' The manager of Medical Staff Services for D stated in her deposition that board certification was not an issue in the re-credentialing of active staff physicians. The court granted D’s motion for summary judgment and P appealed.