Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing Profession

April 2020 

  A substantive nexus exists between the public and a healthcare provider’s duties to its patients as to communicable disease transmission.

  However, a lawsuit by a member of the public is still a healthcare liability claim that requires expert proof of the specific duty owed, breach of that duty and a direct causal link to the harm suffered.  SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS February 21, 2020

  During the Ebola virus crisis in 2014 a nurse cared for a patient at a hospital in Texas.  The patient died from the virus.

  The nurse then traveled to Ohio where it was later determined she visited and presumably tried on clothes at a retail specialty fashion shop for women’s clothing.

  After the nurse returned to Texas she herself showed symptoms, was treated for the Ebola virus and recovered fully.

  The fashion shop eventually was forced out of business after reopening following a brief shutdown ordered by health authorities because of publicity of the nurse’s bout with the virus after she had visited the shop.

  The owner of the fashion shop sued the hospital.  The lawsuit alleged the hospital negligently failed to prevent transmission of the Ebola virus to the nurse through proper precautions and training and thereby caused the shop to have to close.

  The Supreme Court of Texas had to answer two basic legal questions.

  Does the law recognize a connection between the public at large and a healthcare provider’s legal responsibilities to its own patients and staff to take required steps to prevent the transmission of communicable diseases?             

  Did the plaintiff business in this case actually prove its case against the hospital? 

  The Court took note of the lawsuit’s allegations as to the legal responsibilities a hospital must fulfill:

     Recognize the danger of the Ebola virus coming to the hospital;

Develop and implement policies and procedures on how to respond to the presence of the Ebola virus in the patient population;

Ensure that all healthcare providers are trained on policies and procedures on how to recognize, appreciate, contain and treat the Ebola virus in the patient population;

Train nurses on proper protection from Ebola;

Ensure that the hospital has appropriate personal protective equipment;

Notify the appropriate authorities and employ qualified people to manage Ebola patients;

Instruct and warn the nurses about the dangers of travel and interacting with the public after potential exposure to the Ebola virus; and

Protect the public from foreseeable harm due to unnecessary exposure of nurses to the Ebola virus.

  The Court ruled healthcare providers have a legal responsibility to protect the public from communicable disease transmission but ruled this hospital has a valid legal defense in this case.

  The fashion shop’s allegations are based on sound legal principles that are viable on a theoretical level.

  On a practical level, however, the fashion shop failed to demonstrate at the summary judgment stage of the litigation that it has marshaled actual evidence that can carry the day in a civil court trial.

  The lawsuit did not have to be brought by a patient of the healthcare provider and allege bodily injury or emotional harm to a patient or family member to be a healthcare liability case, the Court ruled.

  State law in Texas as in other jurisdictions requires proof by expert testimony for all the elements of a healthcare negligence case.  If the plaintiff who filed the case has no such proof, the case is subject to dismissal.

  In short, the fashion shop had no specific proof what the hospital was supposed to have done, what it did not do or how that led directly to the harm the fashion shop suffered.  Bridal & Formal v. Hospital, 63 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 490,__ S.W. 3d __, 2020 WL 868060 (February 21, 2020).

More references from nursinglaw.com

http://www.nursinglaw.com/infectious-nurse.htm

http://www.nursinglaw.com/infection-control-healthcare-personnel.htm

http://www.nursinglaw.com/infection2.htm