Opinion ID: 2148949
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the tort of negligent credentialing recognized as a common law tort by a majority of other common law states?

Text: At least 27 states recognize the tort of negligent credentialing, [3] and at least three additional states recognize the broader theory of corporate negligence, even though they have not specifically identified negligent credentialing. [4] In fact, only two courts that have considered the claim of negligent credentialing have outright rejected it. [5] The Larsons argue that this broad recognition of the claim evidences a national consensus that hospitals owe a common law duty to patients to exercise reasonable care when making privileging decision. The decisions of other states that recognize the tort of negligent credentialing rely on various rationales, which essentially fall into the following groups. Direct or Corporate Negligence Some courts have recognized the tort of negligent credentialing as simply the application of broad common law principles of negligence. See, e.g., Johnson v. Misericordia Cmty. Hosp., 99 Wis.2d 708, 301 N.W.2d 156, 163-64 (1981) (noting that harm to patients is foreseeable if hospitals fail to properly evaluate and monitor staff physicians); Blanton v. Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 319 N.C. 372, 354 S.E.2d 455, 457 (1987) (noting that corporate negligence is no more than the application of common law principles of negligence); Elam v. College Park Hosp., 132 Cal.App.3d 332, 183 Cal.Rptr. 156, 160 (1982) ([T]he primary consideration is the forseeability of the risk.). In Pedroza v. Bryant , the Washington Supreme Court explained the policy reasons for adopting the theory of corporate negligence. The doctrine of corporate negligence reflects the public's perception of the modern hospital as a multifaceted health care facility responsible for the quality of medical care and treatment rendered. The community hospital has evolved into a corporate institution, assuming the role of a comprehensive health center ultimately responsible for arranging and coordinating total health care. 101 Wash.2d 226, 677 P.2d 166, 169 (1984) (quoting Arthur F. Southwick, The Hospital as an InstitutionExpanding Responsibilities Change Its Relationship with the Staff Physician, 9 Cal. W.L.Rev. 429, 429 (1973)). The Pedroza court went on to say: To implement this duty of providing competent medical care to the patients, it is the responsibility of the institution to create a workable system whereby the medical staff of the hospital continually reviews and evaluates the quality of care being rendered within the institution . . .   . The hospital's role is no longer limited to the furnishing of physical facilities and equipment where a physician treats his private patients and practices his profession in his own individualized manner. 677 P.2d at 169 (quoting Moore v. Bd. of Trustees of Carson  Tahoe Hosp., 88 Nev. 207, 495 P.2d 605, 608 (1972)). Duty of Care for Patient Safety Some courts have considered the tort of negligent credentialing to be an extension of previous decisions that hospitals have a duty to exercise ordinary care and attention for the safety of their patients. See, e.g., Strubhart v. Perry Mem'l Hosp. Trust Auth., 903 P.2d 263, 276 (Okla.1995) (holding that a hospital's duty to ensure that only competent physicians are granted staff privileges is merely a reasonable expansion of the general duty of hospitals to exercise ordinary care for the safety of their patients); Garland, 156 S.W.3d at 545-46 (holding that a hospital's credentialing activities are an inseparable part of the medical services received by patients); Elam, 183 Cal.Rptr. at 161 (noting that case precedent establishes that a hospital has a duty to protect patients from harm and that a hospital's failure to insure the competence of its medical staff creates an unreasonable risk of harm to patients). Negligent Hiring Some courts view the tort of negligent credentialing as the natural extension of the tort of negligent hiring. See, e.g., Rodrigues v. Miriam Hosp., 623 A.2d 456, 463 (R.I.1993) (noting that the liability of a hospital for negligent credentialing is analogous to the liability of an employer for negligent hiring, which is premised on the failure to exercise reasonable care in selecting a person who the employer knew or should have known was unfit or incompetent for the employment, thereby exposing third parties to an unreasonable risk of harm); Domingo v. Doe, 985 F.Supp. 1241, 1245 (D.Haw.1997) (noting that hospitals are in a superior position to monitor and control physician performance and that the rationale underlying a cause of action for negligent hiring is the same as the rationale underlying a cause of action for negligent credentialing). Negligent Selection of Independent Contractors Some courts have relied on the well-established principle that an employer must exercise reasonable care in the selection of a competent independent contractor, as outlined in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411. See, e.g., Corleto, 350 A.2d at 537; Albain, 553 N.E.2d at 1045. In Albain, the court concluded that in a hospital setting, this rule translates into a duty by the hospital only to grant and to continue staff privileges of the hospital to competent physicians. 553 N.E.2d at 1045. The court also noted that a physician's negligence does not automatically mean that the hospital is liable, rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate that but for the hospital's failure to exercise due care in granting staff privileges, the plaintiff would not have been injured. Id. at 1045. Courts that have allowed claims for negligent credentialing have, either implicitly or explicitly, held that such claims are unrelated to the concept of derivative or vicarious liability. See, e.g., Corleto, 350 A.2d at 537 (Liability does not attach vicariously but because of the wrongful act in placing an incompetent in a position to do harm); Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 613 N.E.2d 993, 1003 (1993) (stating that negligent-credentialing claims have nothing to do with any issue concerning derivative liability of the hospital for the acts of its agent or employee-physician); Albain, 553 N.E.2d at 1046 ([A] physician's negligence does not automatically mean that the hospital is liable   .); Pedroza, 677 P.2d at 168-71 (corporate negligence imposes on the hospital a nondelegable duty owed directly to the patient, regardless of the details of the doctor-hospital relationship). We conclude that the tort of negligent credentialing is recognized as a common law tort by a substantial majority of the other common law states.