Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Oehler v. Humana, Inc.
Citations: 775 P.2d 1271; 105 Nev. 348; 1989 Nev. LEXIS 76Docket: 18971
Court: Nevada Supreme Court; June 22, 1989; Nevada; State Supreme Court
On November 12, 1974, Dr. Don L. Christensen performed surgery on Beverly Oehler at Humana Hospital Sunrise, where he held staff privileges. Oehler continued to experience health issues and underwent further surgeries, including gall bladder surgery on October 19, 1982, and the removal of a mass at Valley Hospital on December 16, 1983. On September 30, 1985, Beverly and her husband, Charles Oehler, filed a negligence complaint against Humana and several physicians, including Dr. Christensen, claiming negligent treatment. Humana denied liability, and after discovery, filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted, certifying the judgment under NRCP 54(b). The appellants argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, asserting that genuine issues of material fact existed. They contended that under the corporate negligence theory, a hospital could be liable for the negligent supervision of nonemployee physicians with staff privileges. This theory, supported by the precedent established in Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, suggests that hospitals may be held accountable for inadequate oversight of their medical staff. The appellants claimed that Humana failed to require Dr. Christensen to submit treatment reports as per its regulations. Humana countered that its supervisory duty only extended to employees, a position the court disagreed with, affirming that a hospital's duty to supervise extends to nonemployee physicians as well. The court concluded that the appellants' complaint adequately notified Humana of the claims against it. A complaint can establish a cause of action for negligent supervision if it alleges the hospital's involvement in the operation and that the defendants' negligence directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. In this case, the complaint asserted that the defendants provided medical care to Beverly, were negligent in that care, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries. The court found that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligent supervision. Additionally, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the respondent negligently supervised Dr. Christensen, supported by affidavits from medical experts indicating possible negligence. These affidavits could allow a reasonable jury to side with the appellants, indicating that the issue of negligent supervision warranted a trial. Conversely, regarding vicarious liability, the court noted that a hospital is not liable for the actions of physicians who are not its employees or agents. The appellants presented insufficient evidence to establish Dr. Christensen as the respondent's agent, leading the court to conclude that summary judgment on vicarious liability was appropriate. Consequently, the district court's decision was reversed concerning negligent supervision and affirmed regarding vicarious liability, with the case remanded for trial on the negligent supervision issue.