Opinion ID: 2633506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compliance with HRS Chapter 671

Text: As previously stated, the plaintiffs alleged  not in the MCCP proceedings, but during the circuit court proceedings  that KMS was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee, Dr. Woodruff, for her failure to advise Dr. Pohlson to begin corticosteroid or radiation therapy prior to John's biopsy. As a result, the circuit court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's theory of liability with respect to KMS. It is well-established that the MCCP requirement of HRS chapter 671 is a precondition to suit  although determinations of the panel have no preclusive effect on subsequent litigation. See, e.g., Garcia v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 90 Hawai`i 425, 441, 978 P.2d 863, 879 (1999) (holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction as a result of Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the requirements of HRS § 671-12[,] which mandated that such claims be first filed with the MCCP prior to filing suit); see also Hum v. Dericks, 162 F.R.D. 628, 636 (D.Haw.1995) (While in Hawai`i state courts the MCCP procedure is a prerequisite to suit, it does not determine the outcome of a lawsuit in state court.). [15] As this court has indicated, [t]he procedures outlined [in HRS §§ 671-12 and -16] are jurisdictional prerequisites to suit, and they will be enforced. Tobosa, 69 Haw. at 314-15, 741 P.2d at 1286. Here, the plaintiffs submitted a medical claim against KMS to the MCCP in a letter dated August 7, 2000. The letter stated that the plaintiffs' claims against KMS were based on the theory of respondeat superior, alleging that KMS was vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions of its agents, servants, and employees. KMS, however, argues that the plaintiffs failed to comply with HRS chapter 671's requirements because they named Dr. Vanderford as the only KMS employed physician at the MCCP hearing[.] We cannot agree inasmuch as HRS § 671-12(a) requires only that a claimant... set forth facts upon which the claim is based and ... include the names of all parties against whom the claim is or may be made who are then known to the claimant.  (Emphasis added.) As previously indicated, the plaintiffs did not discover Dr. Woodruff's allegedly substantial, active involvement in making or participating in the decision to proceed with John's biopsy without first shrinking the tumor until the MCCP hearing via Dr. Pohlson's testimony. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs had named KMS as a respondent and had asserted a vicarious liability claim against it. Nowhere in the statute does it require the plaintiffs to name all known negligent health care providers, as KMS contends, with respect to their claim against KMS. Having filed the requisite MCCP claim, participated in the required hearing, and rejected the MCCP's finding of no actionable negligence, we believe the plaintiffs have satisfied HRS chapter 671's statutory prerequisites for filing suit in circuit court. KMS, however, contends that the plaintiffs frustrated the legislative intent and policy of HRS chapter 671 by completely bypassing the MCCP process with respect to Dr. Woodruff's alleged acts or omissions in the care and treatment of John. We disagree. The plaintiffs' complaint did not include any claim against Dr. Woodruff individually. As the plaintiffs point out, it is well settled that a vicarious liability claim does not require that the agents or employees of the entity sought to be held liable be named as parties. The employee is not a necessary party to a suit against his employer under respondeat superior. Hall v. Nat'l Serv. Indus., Inc., 172 F.R.D. 157, 159 (E.D.Pa.1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting Rieser v. Dist. of Columbia, 563 F.2d 462, 469 n. 39 (D.C.Cir.1977)); see also Cheney v. Hailey, 686 P.2d 808, 812 (Colo.Ct.App.1984); Kocsis v. Harrison, 249 Neb. 274, 543 N.W.2d 164, 168-69 (1996); Trans Union Leasing Corp. v. Hamilton, 93 N.M. 310, 600 P.2d 256, 258 (1979); Vendrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 26C Malheur County, 226 Or. 263, 360 P.2d 282, 289 (1961). To hold, as the circuit court did, that the plaintiffs' failure to comply with HRS chapter 671 because Dr. Woodruff was not named as a party in the MCCP hearing precludes the plaintiffs from asserting a vicarious liability claim against KMS would run afoul of the well-established doctrine of respondeat superior/vicarious liability. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim against KMS.