Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Issues in Patient Positioning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Perioperative Considerations and Positioning for Neurosurgical Procedures

  • 760 Accesses

Abstract

Surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other health care providers may be subject to liability for injuries relating to improper patient positioning in neurosurgical procedures. Lawsuits arising out of these types of injuries typically allege medical malpractice, but some also include claims for lack of informed consent. These torts are, for the most part, governed by state law; consequently, litigants may be subject to different requirements depending on where the lawsuit is filed. Recent federal legislation has attempted to standardize aspects of these claims, but, to date, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Flemma R. Medical malpractice: a dilemma in the search for justice. Marq L Rev. 1985;Winter; 68(2):240–42.

  2. 2.

    Jena A, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):632.

  3. 3.

    Ibid., 633.

  4. 4.

    Ibid., 632.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., 632–33.

  6. 6.

    Ibid.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., 633.

  8. 8.

    The text of this chapter was submitted for prepublication review and approved by the ASA Closed Claims Project Committee.

  9. 9.

    E.g., Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011).

  10. 10.

    E.g., Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 (2016).

  11. 11.

    E.g., Amos v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 259 S.W.3d 705, 710 (Tenn. 2008).

  12. 12.

    E.g., Bozarth v. State LSU Med. Ctr./Chabert Med. Ctr., 35 So. 3d 316, 324 (La. Ct. App. 2010); Siirila v. Barrios, 248 N.W.2d 171, 192 (Mich. 1976).

  13. 13.

    Lewis MH, Gohagan JK, Merenstein DJ. The locality rule and the physician’s dilemma. JAMA. 2007;7(23):2635.

  14. 14.

    Hall v. Hilbun, 466 So. 2d 856, 871 (Miss. 1985).

  15. 15.

    Lewis et al. supra note 13, at 2635.

  16. 16.

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115 (2017).

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527, 552-53 (Tenn. 2011).

  19. 19.

    Ibid., 553 (internal citations omitted).

  20. 20.

    E.g., Doe v. St. Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 72 A.3d 929, 963–64 (Conn. 2013); Moyer v. Reynolds, 780 So. 2d 205, 208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001); Darling v. Charleston Cmty. Mem’l Hosp., 211 N.E.2d 253, 257 (Ill. 1965); Wuest v. McKennan Hosp., 619 N.W.2d 682, 689 (S. D. 2000); Prewitt v. Semmes-Murphey Clinic, P.C., No. W2006-00556-COA-R3-CV, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 149, at *47–48 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2007); Reed v. Granbury Hosp. Corp., 117 S.W.3d 404, 413 (Tex. App. 2003); Auer v. Baker, 63 Va. Cir. 596, 600 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2004).

  21. 21.

    Wuest, 619 N.W.2d at 689.

  22. 22.

    Estate of Lepage v. Horne, 809 A.2d 505, 516 (Conn. 2002); Kipp v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 691 (D. Neb. 1995); United States ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 84 F. Supp. 2d 427, 432–33 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

  23. 23.

    Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–10, § 106(d)(1), 129 Stat. 87, 142 (2015).

  24. 24.

    Ibid., § 106(d)(2); see Bain v. Colbert County Nw. Ala. Health Care Auth., No. 1150764, 2017 Ala. LEXIS 9, at *50 fn.8 (Ala. Feb. 10, 2017).

  25. 25.

    Accord Martin JT. General principles of safe positioning. In: Martin JT, Warner MA, editors. Positioning in anesthesia and surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1997. p. 6.

  26. 26.

    Dierolf vs. Doylestown Hosp., et al. Pennsylvania jury verdict review & analysis 1989;7(5).

  27. 27.

    Neidert v. Univ. of Minn. Med. Ctr., No. 27-CV-08-11856, 2009 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 112 (Minn. Dist. Ct. July 6, 2009).

  28. 28.

    Ibid., *2–9 & 39.

  29. 29.

    Neidert v. Univ. of Minn. Med. Ctr., No. 27-CV-08-11856, 2009 Minn. Dist. LEXIS 105 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Oct. 26, 2009).

  30. 30.

    Barber v. Dean, 303 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. App. 2009).

  31. 31.

    Ibid., 830–31 (italics in original).

  32. 32.

    Ibid., 822, 826–27, 830–31.

  33. 33.

    Padilla v. Loweree, 354 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. App. 2011).

  34. 34.

    Ibid.,., 859, 861–64, 866.

  35. 35.

    E.g., Horner v. N. Pac. Benefit Ass’n Hosps., Inc., 382 P.2d 518 (Wash. 1963); Getch v. Bel-Park Anesthesia Assoc., 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1920 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 15, 1998); Fitzgerald v. El Camino Hosp., No. H032094, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7181 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2009).

  36. 36.

    See Getch, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1920, at *1–2.

  37. 37.

    White KJ. Medicolegal considerations. In: Martin JT, Warner MA, editors. Positioning in anesthesia and surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1997. p. 330.

  38. 38.

    Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 17 cmt. a (2010).

  39. 39.

    Ibid., § 17 cmt. g.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., § 17 cmt. e.

  41. 41.

    Fitzgerald v. El Camino Hosp., No. H032094, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7181 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2009).

  42. 42.

    Ibid., *2–7, 33–44.

  43. 43.

    Seavers v. Methodist Med. Ctr., 9 S.W.3d 86 (Tenn. 1999).

  44. 44.

    Ibid., 91–93.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., 92.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., 94–95.

  47. 47.

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-101 (2017).

  48. 48.

    Steele v. Ft. Sanders Anesthesia Group, P.C., 897 S.W.2d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).

  49. 49.

    Ibid., 275.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.,., 272–75, 282–84.

  51. 51.

    See generally Avraham, Ronen, Database of State Tort Law Reforms (5th) (May 2014). U of Texas Law and Econ Research Paper No. e555. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=902711.

  52. 52.

    See Stein A. Toward a new theory of medical malpractice. Iowa L. Rev. 2012; 97:1253 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.2(b) (West 2010) and Fla. Stat. Ann. § 766.118(3)(b)).

  53. 53.

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-102(a) (2017).

  54. 54.

    Ibid., § 29-39-102(b).

  55. 55.

    Ibid., § 29-39-102(h).

  56. 56.

    Stein, supra note 52, at 1254.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., 1254 n.291; Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542 (Mo. 2016).

  58. 58.

    Stein, supra note 52, at 1254 n.1291; N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Kalitan, No. SC15-1858, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 1277 (Fla. June 8, 2017).

  59. 59.

    Clark v. Cain, 479 S.W.3d 830 (Tenn. 2015).

  60. 60.

    Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tenn. 1992) (citation omitted).

  61. 61.

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104(a)(1) (2017).

  62. 62.

    Ibid.,., § 29-39-104(a)(5) & (7).

  63. 63.

    E.g., Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572, 575 (Utah 1993).

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116(a) (2017).

  66. 66.

    S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-545 (2016).

  67. 67.

    E.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-106.

  68. 68.

    Lee, 867 P.2d at 576 (citation omitted).

  69. 69.

    Ibid. (citation omitted).

  70. 70.

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116.

  71. 71.

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.105 (2017).

  72. 72.

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116.

  73. 73.

    Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522, 524 (Tenn. 1998).

  74. 74.

    See, e.g., Ibid.,., 123; Foster v. Traul, 175 P.3d 186, 192 (Idaho 2008).

  75. 75.

    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.101 (2015).

  76. 76.

    Blanchard, 975 S.W.2d at 524; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-118.

  77. 77.

    Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 791 (D.C. Cir. 1972); see also Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Assocs., 9 S.W.3d 119, 122 fn.1 (Tenn. 1999) (summarizing the states that have adopted the objective standard).

  78. 78.

    Ashe, 9 S.W.3d at 122.

  79. 79.

    Foster v. Traul, 175 P.3d 186, 192 (Idaho 2007).

  80. 80.

    Ibid., 188 & 192–94.

  81. 81.

    Nemcik v. United States, No. 05-1469, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51784 (D. N. J. July 8, 2008).

  82. 82.

    Ibid., *39–40.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., *6–7 & 40–42.

  84. 84.

    Dacey v. Huckell, No. 42471, 2015 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 372 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 11, 2015).

  85. 85.

    Ibid.

  86. 86.

    All actions H.R.1215—115th Congress (2017–2018) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1215/all-actions-without-amendments?r=1.

  87. 87.

    Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017, H.R. 1215, 115th Cong., 1st Sess. (2017) (as referred to the Senate).

  88. 88.

    H.R. Rep. No. 115-55, at 36 (2017) (internal footnotes omitted).

  89. 89.

    Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017, supra note 87.

  90. 90.

    H.R. Rep. No. 115-55, at 35.

  91. 91.

    Dickson V. Providers want trump to stay out of tort reform. Modern Healthcare [Internet]. 2017 May 24 [cited 2017 Jun 18]. Available at: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170524/NEWS/170529947/providers-want-trump-to-stay-out-of-tort-reform.

  92. 92.

    See Protecting Access to Healthcare Act, H.R. 5, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (2012); Actions overview H.R.5—112th Congress (2011–2012) [Internet]. Available from https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5/actions?r=1.

  93. 93.

    Empowering Patients First Act of 2015, H.R. 2300 §§ 401 et seq., 114th Cong., 1st Sess. (2015).

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    All Actions H.R.2300—114th Congress (2015-2016) [Internet]. Available from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2300/all-actions?r=1.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Douglas Hof, M.D. for providing the ASA Closed Claims Project data referenced herein.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency, organization, employer, or company. Nothing in this chapter is intended to be construed as legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harris Shelton Hanover Walsh, PLLC, Memphis, TN, USA

    Emily Hamm Huseth J.D.

Authors
  1. Emily Hamm Huseth J.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Hamm Huseth J.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Semmes-Murphey Neurologic and Spine Clinic, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

    Adam Arthur

  2. Semmes-Murphey Neurologic and Spine Clinic, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

    Kevin Foley

  3. Medical Anesthesia Group, Germantown, Tennessee, USA

    C. Wayne Hamm

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Huseth, E.H. (2018). Legal Issues in Patient Positioning. In: Arthur, A., Foley, K., Hamm, C. (eds) Perioperative Considerations and Positioning for Neurosurgical Procedures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72679-3_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72679-3_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72678-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72679-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation