You are on page 1of 6

Samantha Ciesielski

Steven Begando
Tanner Benson
Jasa Bullinek
Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital
I.

Procedure
A. Parties: Misericordia Community Hospital, Mr. Johnson.
B. Plaintiff: Mr. Johnson
C. 99 Wis 2d 708, 301 N.W. 2d 156
D. Mr. Johnson, the plaintiff, won at the trial level
E. Trial court level found in favor of plaintiff court of appeals affirmed the decision.

II.

Facts
A. Facts
1. Performed on Mr. Johnson by a Dr. Salinsky.
2. A permanent paralytic condition of his right thigh muscles with
resultant atrophy and weakness and loss of function.
3. A verdict in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed by the court of appeals.
4. Misericordia Community Hospital had previously been a religiously
affiliated hospital but was sold to a private group of physicians who
first operated it as a nursing home but subsequently reinstituted acute
services there.

5. At the time of the incidents the hospital was not accredited by the Joint
Commission.
6. On March 5, 1973 Dr. Salinksy applied for orthopedic privileges on
the medical staff.
7. In his application, Slainsky stated that he was on the active medical
staff of his privileges at other hospitals had never been suspended,
diminished, revoked, or not renewed.
8. In another part of the application form, he failed to answer any of the
questions pertaining to his malpractice insurance.
9. Represented that he had requested privileges only for those surgical
procedures in which he was qualified by certification.
10. Application provided that significant misstatements or omissions
would be a cause for denial of appointment.
11. In the application, Salinsky authorized Misericordia to contact his
malpractice carriers, past and present, and all the hospitals that he had
previously been associated with, for the purpose of obtaining any
information bearing on his professional competence, as well as his
moral and ethical qualifications for staff membership.
12. Application also contained language releasing the hospital for any
liability as a result of doing a background check on the applicant.
13. Mrs. Jane Bekos, Misericordias medical staff coordinator testifying
from hospital records, noted that Salinskys appointment to the

medical staff was recommended by the then hospital administrator,


David A. Scott Sr., on June 22, 1973.
14. Salinksys appointment and requested orthopedic privileges, according
to hospital records, were not marked approved until August 8, 1973.
15. Approval of his appointment was endorsed by Salinsky.
16. Approval would not be signed by the applicant but by the chief of the
respective medical section.
17. Record establishes that Salinksy was elevated to the position of Chief
of Staff shortly after he joined.
18. Court record and hospital records are devoid of any information
concerning the procedure utilized by the Misericordia authorities in
approving either Salinskys appointment to the staff with orthopedic
privileges or his elevation to the position of Chief of Staff.
19. Mrs. Bekos failed to contact any of the references in Salinksys case.
20. In her testimony she attempted to justify her failure to investigate
Salinsnkys application because she believed he had been a member of
the medical staff prior to her employment in April 1973.
21. His application was not marked approved until four months later on
August 9, 1973.
22. Mrs. Bekos stated that an examination of the Misericordia records
reflected that at no time was an investigation made by anyone of any
statements recited in his application.

23. At trial, representatives of two Milwaukee hospitals gave testimony


accepting procedure for evaluating applicants for medical staff
privileges stated hospitals governing body.
24. Board of trustees has the ultimate responsibility in granting or denying
staff privileges.
25. Governing board delegates responsibility of evaluating professional
qualification of all applicants.
26. The credentials committee conducts an investigation of applying
physicians or surgeons education, training, health, ethics etc.
27. Through contacts with his peers in his specialty in which he is seeking
privileges as well as references listed to determine the veracity of his
statements.
B) Other facts
1. Why was Dr. Salinsky able to practice in so many different hospitals
prior to this case?
2. Did the doctor practice medicine after settling?
3. Did the hospital create new policies and procedures following the
case?
4. Was Jane Bekos, the Medical Staff Coordinator reprimanded after the
trial?
I.

Issues
A. Precise issues
1. Negligence in selecting staff.

2. Failure to follow procedure on evaluation.


3. Hospitals failure to properly investigate and verify the accuracy of an
applicants statements.
B. Yes, we agree with the way the court has framed those issues. It is obvious that
the hospital did not follow proper hiring procedures resulting in the injury of a
patient.
II.

Holding
A. A jury found that the hospital was negligent in granting orthopedic surgical
privileges to Dr, Salinksy and thus apportioned eighty percent of the causal
negligence to Misericordia. Damages were awarded in the sum of $315,000 for
the past and future personal injuries and $90,000 for past and future impairment
of earning capacity.
B. The final responsibility to investigate and evaluate the professional competence of
the applicants for clinical privileges does not relieve the governing body of its
duty to appoint only qualified physicians and surgeons to its medical staff and
periodically monitor and review their competence.

III.

Implications
A. For the future this case changed the way hospitals scrutinize the credentials for all
health profession applicants to ensure there are no unqualified physicians,
surgeons etc. It also, signifies the importance of reviewing references, previous
managers and colleagues for verification.
B. The importance of refining the hiring process of health applicants. Also there are
restrictions for all physicians by completing proper training within the facility. As

well as there are required background checks for all physicians or health
professionals.
C. Healthcare administrators should prepare to deal with these implications by
possibly appointing a hiring team to look more closely at applicant; therefore
ensuring all their physicians are qualified. Future healthcare administrators must
check for creditable credentials.
D. If the hospital would have not been found negligent, we would have hospitals full
of unqualified physicians or it is possible another case or law suit would have
been found reliable. Unqualified physicians and surgeons could result to more
deaths.

You might also like