Larson v. Wasemille

738 N.W.2d 300 (2007)

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

D, with the assistance of his brother, Dr. Paul Wasemiller, performed gastric bypass surgery on P at St. Francis Medical Center. P experienced complications following the surgery, and Dr. Paul Wasemiller performed a second surgery. On April 22, 2002, after being moved to a long-term care facility, P was transferred to MeritCare Hospital for emergency surgery. P remained hospitalized until June 28, 2002. Ps claim that St. Francis was negligent in credentialing D. The granting of hospital privileges normally does not create an employment relationship with the hospital, but it allows physicians access to the hospital's facilities and imposes certain professional standards. The decision to grant hospital privileges to a physician is made by the hospital's governing body based on the recommendations of the credentials committee. A credentials committee is a type of peer review committee. Minnesota has a peer review statute that provides for the confidentiality of peer review proceedings and grants some immunity to those involved in the credentialing process. St. Francis filed a motion to dismiss P’s complaint. The trial court held that Minnesota 'will and does recognize, at common law, a professional tort against hospitals and review organizations for negligent credentialing privileging.' The court then certified two questions to the court of appeals Does the state of Minnesota recognize a common law cause of action of privileging of a physician against a hospital or other review organization? Does Minn. Stat. §§ 145.63-145.64 grant immunity from or otherwise limit the liability of a hospital or other review organization for a claim of negligent credentialing/privileging of a physician? The court of appeals held that Minnesota does not recognize a common law cause of action for negligent credentialing of a physician against a hospital, and noted that the confidentiality mandate of Minn. Stat. § 145.64 'limits the evidence that could be used to support or defend against such a claim in a manner that appears to affect the fundamental fairness of recognizing such a claim * * *.' It then held that the plain language of Minn. Stat. §§ 145.63-.64 does not grant immunity to a hospital or other review organization from liability for a claim of negligent credentialing of a physician, but that the statute does limit the liability of hospitals or other review organizations 'to actions or recommendations not made in a reasonable belief that the action or recommendation is warranted by facts known to it after reasonable efforts to ascertain the facts on which its action or recommendation is made.' Ps sought review of the court of appeals holding that Minnesota does not recognize a claim for negligent credentialing.