Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:24:31.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nursing Negligence in Collaborative Practice: Legal Liability in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Mary E. Kelly  and
Thomas R. Garrick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the past two decades, discussion has increased among health care professionals about joint or collaborative practice. In 1971, the American Nurses” Association (ANA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) established the National Joint Practice Commission to examine and make recommendations regarding the roles of physicians and nurses in the provision of quality health care. The Commission, comprised of three nurses and three physicians appointed respectively by the ANA and the AMA, defined joint practice as “nurses and physicians collaborating together as colleagues to provide patient care”. The purpose of this broad definition was to include all collaborating registered nurses, not only nurse practitioners.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 12 , Issue 6 , December 1984 , pp. 260 - 267
Copyright
© 1984 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

National Joint Practice Commission, Definition of Joint or Collaborative Practice in Hospitals (September 1977); Joint Practice in Primary Care: Definitions and Guidelines (September 1977); Statement on Nursing Staffs in Hospitals (September 1977).Google Scholar
Definition of Joint or Collaborative Practice in Hospitals, supra note 1.Google Scholar
National Joint Practice Commission, Guidelines for Establishing Joint or Collaborative Practice in Hospitals (1981).Google Scholar
Primary nursing involves the collaboration of individual nurses and physicians in the care of each patient. Both caregivers are known to the patient, are on 24-hour call and are jointly accountable for care of that patient. See National Joint Practice Bulletin 2:4 (1976).Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Sermchief v. Gonzales, 660 S.W.2d 683, 690, n. 6 (Mo. banc 1983).Google Scholar
E.g., Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Mohammad, 586 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 924 (1979).Google Scholar
Sermchief, supra note 6, at 684.Google Scholar
Naisbitt, J. Megatrends, (Warner Books, New York, N.Y.) (1984) at xxvii.Google Scholar
Chalmers-Francis v. Nelson, 57 P.2d 1312, 1313 (Cal. 1936).Google Scholar
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2725 (1939).Google Scholar
Id. § 2726.Google Scholar
Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners, 366 P.2d 816, 820 (Cal. 1961).Google Scholar
Chalmers-Francis, supra note 10, at 1313.Google Scholar
Magit, supra note 13, at 819–20.Google Scholar
Id. at 820.Google Scholar
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2725 (West Supp. 1984).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. (italics supplied).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. (italics in the original).Google Scholar
Sermchief, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Id. at 690.Google Scholar
Rev. Stat. Mo. § 335.0168 (b) (1975).Google Scholar
Sermchief, supra note 6, at 689.Google Scholar
Board of Registered Nursing, Standardized Procedures (rev. April 1984) (available from BRN, 1020 N. Street, Sacramento, CA 95814) [hereinafter referred to as BRN Policy].Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2051 (West Supp. 1984).Google Scholar
BRN Policy, supra note 27, at 3.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2038 (West Supp. 1984).Google Scholar
BRN Policy, supra note 27, at 3.Google Scholar
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 22, R.70706 (a) (1983).Google Scholar
Id. R. 70706.1 (a).Google Scholar
Id. R. 70706.2 (a)(1).Google Scholar
Id. R. 70706(c) (1). As a result of these provisions, the facility may be liable under corporate negligence theory for the negligent supervision and selection of nurses functioning in an expanded role.Google Scholar
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 22, R.70706 (b) (1983) (requiring administrator, nursing director, and an equal number of physicians and nurses).Google Scholar
Id. R. 70706(c)(1)–(4).Google Scholar
Id. R. 70706(c), R. 70706.2(3) (b) (3).Google Scholar
Id. R. 70706.2(3) (b) (2).Google Scholar
Id. R. 70706.2(b) (4); Cal. Admin. Code tit. 16, R. 1474(b) (4).Google Scholar
Cal Admin. Code tit. 16, R. 1474 (b) (5) (1983); Cal. Admin. Code tit. 22, R. 70706.2(b) (5) (1983).Google Scholar
BRN Policy, supra note 27, at 2.Google Scholar
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 16, R. 1474 (b) (1983).Google Scholar
Id. R. 1474(b) (7).Google Scholar
Id. R. 1474(b) (8).Google Scholar
Id. R. 1474(b) (9).Google Scholar
Id. R. 1474(b) (10–11).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Chalmers-Francis, supra note 10, at 1313; Prosser, W., Handbook on the Law of Torts (West Publishing Co., St. Paul Minn.) (1971) § 32, at 164.Google Scholar
Czubinsky v. Doctors Hosp., 188 Cal. Rptr. 685, 687 (Cal. App. 1983).Google Scholar
Prosser, , supra note 56, § 36, at 190.Google Scholar
Sermchief, supra note 6; Fraijo v. Hartland Hosp., 160 Cal. Rptr. 246 (Cal. App. 1979); Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 175 Cal. Rptr. 177 (Cal. App. 1981).Google Scholar
Cooper v. Nat'l Motor Bearing Co., 288 P.2d 581, 586-87 (Cal. App. 1955).Google Scholar
Goff v. Doctors General Hosp. of San Jose, 333 P.2d 29, 32-33 (Cal. Appl. 1958).Google Scholar
Id. at 31.Google Scholar
Czubinsky, supra note 57, at 687.Google Scholar
Sermchief, supra note 6, at 690.Google Scholar
Lustig v. The Birthplace, No. 83-2-07528-9 (Washington Kings County Super. September 19, 1983) cited in ATLA Law Reporter 27(2): 27 (March 1984).Google Scholar
Fraijo v. Hartland Hosp., 160 Cal. Rptr. 246, 253 (Cal. App. 1979).Google Scholar
Manion v. Tweedy, 100 N.W.2d 124 (Minn. 1960).Google Scholar
Valentine v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., 15 Cal. Rptr. 26, 33 (Cal. App. 1961), disapproved on other grounds, Silverson v. Weber, 22 Cal. Rptr. 337 (Cal. 1962).Google Scholar
Annot., 35 A.L.R.3d 349, 358–60, citing Sinz v. Owens, 205 P.2d 3, 8 (Cal. 1949).Google Scholar
Marchese v. Monaco, 145 A.2d 809, 817 (N.J. 1958).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Latson v. Zeiler, 58 Cal. Rptr. 438 (Cal. App. 1967); Oldis v. La Societe Francaise de Bienfaisance Mutuelle, 279 P.2d 184, 186 (Cal. App. 1955).Google Scholar
See Shannon v. Ramsey, 193 N.E.2d 235, 236–37 (Mass. 1934); Morrill v. Komasinski, 41 N.W.2d 620, 624 (Wisc. 1950).Google Scholar
Cf. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 317 P.2d 170,179 (Cal. App. 1957); Simons v. Northern P.R. Co., 22 P.2d 609, 613 (Mont. 1933).Google Scholar
Rodgers v. Canfield, 262 N.W. 409, 410 (Mich. 1935).Google Scholar
Josselyn v. Dearborn, 62 A.2d 174, 182 (Me. 1978).Google Scholar
Prosser, supra note 56, § 132, at 164.Google Scholar
Gugino v. Harvard Community Health Plan, 403 N.E.2d 1166, 1167 (Mass. 1980). The court did not address the merits of the case but instead reviewed the medical malpractice tribunal's ruling that the plaintiff's offer of proof was insufficient and a bond was necessary to proceed in litigation.Google Scholar
See Webb v. Jorns, 473 S.W.2d 328, 336 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971), reversed on other grounds, 488 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. 1982).Google Scholar
Fraijo v. Hartland Hosp., 160 Cal. Rptr. 246 (Cal. App. 1979).Google Scholar
Id. at 252. See Cooper, supra note 60, at 587.Google Scholar
Fraijo, supra note 79, at 251, n.7.Google Scholar
Id. n.8.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 175 Cal. Rtpr. 177 (Cal. App. 1981).Google Scholar
Id. at 192, n. 6. The trial court also instructed the jury as to the standard of the professional nurse.Google Scholar
Id. at 192.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Amicus Brief at 5, California Coalition of Nurse Practitioners, Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, Civ. No. 18349 (Cal. filed 1983).Google Scholar
Cf. Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School District, 177 P.2d 279, 283 (Cal. 1947) (act performed in violation of an ordinance or statute is presumptively an act of negligence).Google Scholar
Prosser, supra note 56, §36 at 195.Google Scholar
119 Cal. Rptr. 571 (Cal. App. 1975).Google Scholar
Id. at 574.Google Scholar
See Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, R.287(b) (1983) (requiring medications and treatments be administered as prescribed). But see Leahy v. Kenosha Mem. Hosp., 348 N.W.2d 607 (Wis. App. 1984) (hospital did not violate Wisconsin NPA and was not negligent per se even though persons caring for plaintiff were not registered nurses within the meaning of the act; prime thrust of statute was to regulate nursing profession, not to protect the public).Google Scholar
Restatement (Second) of Torts §§285, 286; Prosser, supra note 56, § 36, at 190.Google Scholar
Lustig, supra note 65.Google Scholar
Sermchief, supra note 6, at 690.Google Scholar