Opinion ID: 1799100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: does the workers' compensation act immunize dr. orr and phs from common law tort liability?

Text: ¶ 26. Based on the finding that Dr. Orr and Russell were both employed by PHS, the trial court found that Russell's common law action was without merit in light of this Court's interpretation of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act. Our Act and the common law right to sue a fellow employee for negligence, as opposed to an intentional tort, cannot coexist, so the common law right to sue a fellow employee where the injured employee is covered by the Act must give way. McCluskey v. Thompson, 363 So.2d 256, 264 (Miss. 1978); Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-9 (1995). ¶ 27. In McCluskey, the Court explained that the Workers' Compensation Act was a nofault compensation system designed to compensate victims of industrial accidents and aid these individuals in their rehabilitation. The Act places a financial burden on the employer because the accident is within the scope of the victim's employment, and the employer is able to pass the cost on to society. Id. at 259. In return, the Act immunizes employers and co-employees for liability under common law negligence. [T]he statute contemplates that an employee injured in the scope of his employment by the negligence of a co-employee may not recover from the co-employee, at common law or otherwise, because workers' compensation is the employee's exclusive remedy for work-related injuries against either his employer or co-employees. Medders v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 623 So.2d 979, 984 (Miss. 1993); Griffin v. Futorian Corp., 533 So.2d 461, 464 (Miss. 1988); Brown v. Estess, 374 So.2d 241, 243 (Miss. 1979). ¶ 28. As indicated above, there are reasons to conclude that neither Dr. Orr nor Russell were employed with PHS. But even assuming Dr. Orr and Russell are employees of PHS, their co-employee status does not necessarily bar Russell's common law action, nor does the exclusivity feature of the Workers' Compensation Act preclude Russell's legal action. ¶ 29. The Workers' Compensation Act provides compensation under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-7 (1995) for those injured in the course of employment. [2] A review of the facts in dispute may be helpful. In response to interrogatories regarding the events which led to Russell's injury, the following was stated by Russell: Dr. Edwin R. Orr was negligent because he did not order or perform an x-ray on Ms. Russell's left leg and foot when she presented to the emergency room on December 25, 1989. Dr. Orr was also negligent for not referring Ms. Russell to another doctor for ten days after the incident and seven days after he had xrayed her left leg and foot and knew that it was broken. All of these facts breach the standard of care which Dr. Orr was obligated to perform. ¶ 30. The following is Dr. Orr's version of the events that occurred during Russell's visit to the emergency room on December 25, 1989: The initial diagnosis was a sprain, based upon the initial information and examination. The initial complaint that was the chief complaint was that she had slipped down on water in the kitchen. The patient, Mrs. Russell, was instructed to use an Ace bandage and to apply ice. Dr. Orr advised Mrs. Russell that the only way to determine whether the foot was broken was to x-ray it. Mrs. Russell was in a hurry and stated that she did not have time on Christmas day to get an x-ray due to the fact that she needed to get back to the kitchen to cook Christmas dinner and declined an x-ray. An Ace bandage was applied at the hospital. She was advised to follow-up with doctor as needed. The Defendant, Dr. Orr, would adopt by reference, the entire emergency room records. ¶ 31. The actual injury for which Russell seeks to recover stems from the treatment she received in the PHS emergency room from Dr. Orr. Even in her complaint, Russell suggests that the harm she suffered originated from the doctor-patient relationship that she shared with Dr. Orr. Though this Court has held that aggravation of an existing infirmity is compensable under the Workmens' Compensation Act, see Universal Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 260 So.2d 827 (Miss. 1972), this does not disturb the principle that third parties causing those injuries may be held liable in tort for causing the aggravation of those pre-existing injuries. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-15(4) (1995). The injury which is the subject of the instant complaint emanates from an alleged failure to diagnose and prescribe proper treatment. Assuming that Dr. Orr and Russell are both employees of PHS  and this is far from certain  the question then becomes whether the allegedly negligent treatment Russell received was administered in the course of her employment. ¶ 32. Dr. Orr contends that the rule from Trotter v. Litton Systems, Inc., 370 So.2d 244 (Miss. 1979), provides controlling legal precedent. In Trotter, this Court considered the socalled dual capacity doctrine, by which an employer normally shielded from liability under the Workmens' Compensation Act may become liable in tort to his own employee if he occupies, in addition to his capacity as employer, a second capacity that confers on him obligations independent of those imposed on him as employer. Trotter, 370 So.2d at 245. The Trotter Court rejected the dual capacity doctrine on the ground that if the employer is liable for compensation he cannot also be liable in tort. Thus, since aggravation by a physician of an injury sustained by an employee in the scope of employment is compensable under the Act, the employer is shielded from liability in tort. Id. at 247. On this ground, Dr. Orr claims that Russell's injury in the kitchen was only aggravated by his alleged negligence and any recovery for injury must be within the exclusive workers' compensation law. ¶ 33. The Trotter Court depended in part on Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 53 Cal. App.3d 499, 125 Cal. Rptr. 872 (1975), and Warwick v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Co., Inc., 303 So.2d 701 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974). In Dixon, survivors of an employee who died on the job brought a wrongful death action against the employer and a nurse and orderly in the company's employ who had provided allegedly negligent treatment at the plant aid station. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the ground that the exclusive remedy was under the workmens' compensation act. Warwick also involved negligent treatment at an employer's clinic staffed by nurses employed by the company. The injured employee argued that aggravation of his compensable back injury by the company's nurses fell within the scope of the dual capacity doctrine, rendering the employer liable in tort. The court rejected this argument and held that the employer was entitled to the immunity of common-law liability prescribed under Florida's Workmens' Compensation Act. Warwick, 303 So.2d at 702. ¶ 34. Dixon has itself been distinguished in later California cases. In Perry v. Heavenly Valley, 163 Cal. App.3d 495, 209 Cal. Rptr. 771 (1985), a ski resort employee brought a negligence action against the resort alleging negligence arising from an accident in which the bindings separated from her skis while she was engaged in her duties as a racing coach at the resort. The court identified the critical issue as whether the resort mounted her bindings in its capacity as a provider of services to the general public and not as an incident to the employer-employee relationship. Perry, 209 Cal. Rptr. at 779. The court noted that  Dixon is clearly distinguishable from the present case because [there] the plant aid station was maintained exclusively for employees of the plant and for the mutual welfare and convenience of the employer and employees. Thus, it was analogous to a manufacturer providing a product which is not sold to the general public. 209 Cal. Rptr. at 780. In another case, Bell v. Macy's California, 212 Cal. App.3d 1442, 261 Cal. Rptr. 447 (1989), a pregnant employee of Macy's received negligent treatment from a nurse employed by the store to staff a small dispensary and to provide first aid to employees and customers. Similarly, the case turned on whether the employee received the services in her capacity as employee or customer. Id. 261 Cal. Rptr. at 452. The court ruled that [i]n the absence of any indication that Macy's and Bell stepped out of their roles as employer and employee, we decline to apply the dual capacity rule to this case. Id. at 453. ¶ 35. As to Warwick, the Florida courts have not distinguished this case nor adopted the dual capacity doctrine in any other contexts. However, its courts have not yet been squarely faced with circumstances like those in the present case, where the plaintiff's receipt of ill-manufactured goods or negligent services was arguably outside the scope of employment. It has been suggested, however, that were they faced with such an issue the question would hinge on whether the plaintiff were acting in his or her capacity as a member of the general public. In Roberson v. Nooter Corp., 459 So.2d 1156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984), the plaintiff was injured by an explosion of a continuous polymerization finisher which was manufactured by a subsidiary of defendant-employer Monsanto. The Roberson Court noted that the issue was based upon the manufacturer's assuming a liability toward its employee as it would assume toward the general public who buys the product and for whom the product is primarily manufactured. Id. at 1157. However, the court declined to determine the viability of the doctrine in Florida because the finisher was not manufactured primarily for sale to the general public. See also Caraccioli v. KFC Mfg. Corp., 761 F. Supp. 119 (M.D.Fla. 1991). ¶ 36. We read Trotter to hold merely that when an employee seeks medical services at an on-site company facility, or the services are otherwise rendered to the employee in his or her capacity as such employee, then the dual capacity doctrine may not be invoked to hold employers or co-employees liable for common law actions under some alternative duty. However, when it can fairly be said, as here, that the injured employee has sought such services as a member of the general public, then a question of fact arises whether the services were rendered within the scope of employment. This approach does not constitute an acceptance of the dual capacity doctrine rejected in Trotter. The determination of common law liability is based not on an additional duty imposed upon the employer or co-employee, but rather on whether the injury complained of was incurred during the course of employment as required under the Workmens' Compensation Act. [3] ¶ 37. We believe the New York courts have best explained this approach. In Milashouskas v. Mercy Hosp., 64 A.D.2d 978, 408 N.Y.S.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978), a nurse was seriously injured in the course of her employment at the hospital where she worked. Requiring immediate medical attention, she went to the emergency room of the hospital and was subsequently hospitalized as an in-patient. She later filed a malpractice action against the hospital alleging she was the victim of negligent treatment. As an affirmative defense the hospital argued that the nurse's medical malpractice action was barred because the Workers' Compensation Law provided an exclusive remedy. The court dismissed the affirmative defense, holding that the plaintiff nurse received medical treatment as a member of the public, and there was no evidence that the medical treatment arose out of and in the course of the plaintiff's employment. Milashouskas, 408 N.Y.S.2d at 809. ¶ 38. In Weber v. State, 104 Misc.2d 947, 429 N.Y.S.2d 380 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1980), an action was brought against the state and the New York Department of Mental Hygiene for wrongful death predicated upon medical malpractice and breach of contract. In determining whether to strike the defendant's affirmative defense that workers' compensation benefits would constitute the claimant's exclusive remedy, the court noted that cases dealing with medical malpractice of an employer fall into two basic categories: (1) where the employer is engaged in a non-medical business and supplies medical services solely to its employees, and (2) where the employer is a hospital providing medical services to the public. In the first category compensation has been held exclusive, while the opposite result has been obtained in the second. Weber, 429 N.Y.S.2d at 383. The court held that unlike Milashouskas, the facility involved is not engaged in providing general medical services to the public, but is rather a psychiatric hospital engaged in the care, treatment and rehabilitation of the mentally disabled. Id. The court found that a duty existed to provide treatment predicated upon the decedent's status as an employee of the defendant and the beneficiary of a union contract. This indicated a prima facie connection between the injury and the employment, and thus the claimant had not established unavailability of compensation as a matter of law. ¶ 39. In Firestein v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 137 A.D.2d 34, 528 N.Y.S.2d 85 (1988), an injured hospital employee filed suit against a hospital and co-employee for medical malpractice. The plaintiff was employed as a patients account clerk, and during the course of her employment slipped and fell. She was admitted to the hospital for medical treatment, and during her stay was reinjured by the negligent mistreatment of a non-physician employee, Scott. The defendants argued on appeal that because the hospital was Firestein's employer and because Scott was her co-employee, they were shielded from liability at common law. Id. 528 N.Y.S.2d at 88. The court held that the injuries resulting from the mistreatment did not arise out of the patient's employment, citing Milashouskas and a host of other New York cases. Id. The court observed, [t]hese cases are to be distinguished from those in which malpractice is committed by a coemployee of the plaintiff, and where the medical services rendered by that coemployee were not available to the public, but were exclusively available to coemployees, so that a nexus exists between the plaintiff's employment and the occurrence of the malpractice. Id. ¶ 40. Most importantly, the court articulated why the dual capacity doctrine  which has been rejected in New York as it has been in Mississippi under Trotter  was not invoked by the ruling of the court: Under the dual capacity doctrine, an employee who is injured during the course of his employment may sue his employer for money damages if the employer occupies ... a second capacity that confers on him obligations independent of those imposed on him as employer (citations omitted). Once again, the fundamental distinction in the present case is that the injuries for which Mrs. Firestein seeks compensation in a court of law did not occur within the scope of her employment. To allow the plaintiff to pursue her common-law right to recover compensation for the injuries sustained by her as a result of medical malpractice which did not, in any sense, occur during the course of her employment, does not constitute approval of the dual capacity doctrine. Firestein, 528 N.Y.S.2d at 89. ¶ 41. This Court finds such an approach sensible and fair. We do not interpret the Act to protect physicians when their services are offered to the general public and fellow employees seek such services as members of that public. Barring an employee's common law action against a physician by confining his recovery exclusively to the workers' compensation system for negligent aggravation of an on-the-job injury in such circumstances goes beyond the purposes of the fellow employee immunity principle of McCluskey and Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-9. ¶ 42. We thus hold that where an employee is injured in the course of employment, and subsequently seeks treatment from a co-employee which aggravates the injury, a question of fact arises as to whether a sufficient nexus exists between the plaintiff's status as employee and the treatment sought for the injury. Where treatment is sought at a company-owned facility or first aid station maintained by the employer for the welfare and benefit of employees, the connection between employment status and the subsequent treatment is clear. However, where the plaintiff employee can demonstrate that separate treatment was sought in the plaintiff's capacity as a member of the general public, then any common law cause of action which arises as a result of that treatment will not be excluded by the exclusivity provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-9. ¶ 43. Under this analysis, Dr. Orr wrongly relies on the similarities between Northern Electric, 660 So.2d 1278, and the instant matter. He states that Northern Electric obviously is akin to Pontotoc Hospital, Kelly to Valley, Phillips to Ms. Russell, and the Northern Electric co-employee Minter to Orr. Arguably, the dissimilarities are compelling. In Northern Electric, the co-employee Minter was a forklift driver working at the same site as plaintiff/employee Phillips. In the present case, the alleged co-employee, Dr. Orr, was a physician rendering medical services to the general public in an emergency room at a hospital where plaintiff/employee Russell only coincidentally worked as a cook. [4] ¶ 44. Russell states she entered the emergency room seeking medical attention. The emergency room record indicates Russell was brought into the hospital by wheelchair and discharged by Dr. Orr fifteen minutes later. A doctor-patient relationship existed between Russell and Dr. Orr. In addition, there are no provisions in the contract between Valley and PHS which require that Valley employees receiving medical services at PHS be considered as anything other than members of the public. The appellant argues, Mrs. Russell was a patient seeking medical treatment, just as any other member of the public that would come to the emergency room for treatment. We conclude that whether Russell sought treatment as a member of the general public is properly a question for the jury, and thus summary judgment was inappropriate as to whether Dr. Orr can be held liable for negligence. ¶ 45. As to the common law liability of PHS, we decline to rule. Since Russell sued PHS on a theory of vicarious liability, the issue of PHS's liability is dependent on the factual issue of whether Dr. Orr was an employee of PHS at the time he rendered the allegedly negligent treatment to Russell.