Duty of Care Legal Implications Discussion

Case: Mathias v. St. Catherine’s Hospital, Inc. Read the attached case summary with references.

Questions:

What legal reasoning could be used to support the appellate court’s decision in this case?
What other party (or parties) might have been sued in this case, and using what theory (theories) of liability?
Based on this case, what risk management concern(s) do you have regarding the hospital’s informed consent practices?
What ethical principles apply in a case such as this?

Cite sources you reference. Discuss with your classmates.

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED SOLUTION PAPERS

Case: Mathias v. St. Catherine’s Hospital, Inc.

The case summary presented below is from George Pozgar (2016). The published court opinion is linked at References.

Mrs. Mathias, Dr. Witt’s patient at St. Catherine’s Hospital, delivered a son by Caesarean section on February 2, 1993, while she was under general anesthesia. In the operating room, Dr. Witt indicated that he needed an instrument typically used in tubal ligation. Operating room nurses, Ms. Snyder and Ms. Perri, employees of St. Catherine’s, looked at Mathias’ chart. Snyder informed Witt that she did not see a signed informed consent form for tubal ligation in the chart. In deposition testimony prior to trial, Snyder stated that Witt replied, “Oh, OK.”

Witt performed a tubal ligation on Mathias. Three days after the procedure, a nurse brought Mathias a consent form for the procedure, told the patient that the form was, “Just to close up our records.” This nurse testified in her deposition that she signed nurse Perri’s name on the consent form and backdated it to February 2, 1993—the day the surgery was performed. The trial court noted that these actions occurring after the surgery were not material to the hospital’s duty to Mathias.

The trial court granted summary judgment, dismissing St. Catherine’s Hospital from the Mathias’ medical malpractice action. Mr. and Mrs. Mathias appealed, contending that the hospital owed a duty to prevent the tubal ligation for which there was no signed consent. The appellate court’s holding affirmed the earlier trial court’s judgment. St. Catherine’s Hospital was therefore found not liable (pp. 317-318).

References:

 Pozgar, George D. (2016). Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration, Twelfth Edition. Burlington MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

 Amy Mathias and Eugene Mathias v. St. Catherine’s Hospital, Inc. (1997). The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Published Opinion, 96-1632.