Does Good Samaritan Act apply to Drs. in hospital? (Medical Law Case of the Month).

CASE ON POINT: Velazquez v. Jiminez, 798 A.2d 51--NJ (2002)

ISSUE: Good Samaritan Acts exist in all 50 states. Despite the fact that all of the states have Good Samaritan Acts, there are significant distinctions throughout the states. There are those states that expressly "exclude" hospital care; those that expressly "include" hospital care; and those, like New Jersey, that contain "no explicit provision" one way or the other.

CASE FACTS: Charmaine Velazquez was admitted to St. Peter's Medical Center for the delivery of a baby. Dr. Teresa Jiminez was her attending physician. Complications occurred during the course of the delivery, which involved bilateral shoulder dystocia. After delivering the baby's head, Dr. Jiminez was unable to deliver the rest of the baby's body. She then called for assistance. Dr. Angela Ranzini responded. Dr. Ranzini had no prior relationship with or connection to the patient. Dr. Ranzini was an Assistant Professor of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), who was assigned to the Maternal Fetal Care Unit (MFCU) at the hospital. Dr. Ranzini specialized in maternal fetal medicine and was responsible both for attending to high-risk patients in the MFCU and for supervising resident physicians who cared for their own UMDNJ clinical patients at the hospital. After assisting in an unsuccessful attempt to complete the delivery vaginally, Dr. Ranzini assisted in preparing the patient and the baby for an emergency Caesarean section. The baby, Conor, was born severely brain damaged, spent his life in a dependent state, and died of pneumonia before reaching the age of three. In July of 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Velazquez filed a suit against Drs. Jiminez, and Ranzini, the medical center, staff members, and others for negligence during Conor's delivery. Before trial, Dr. Jiminez, the medical center, and the other defendants settled with Mr. and Mrs. Velazquez, leaving Dr. Ranzini as the only defendant. Dr. Ranzini moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under the New Jersey Good Samaritan Act. The trial court denied the motion as a matter of law holding that the Act does not immunize physicians responding to emergencies in a hospital. At trial, the plaintiffs' experts testified that Dr. Ranzini deviated from the applicable standard of care. Conversely, Dr. Ranzini's experts testified that her conduct conformed to all applicable standards of care and that Conor's condition resulted from the negligence of Dr. Jiminez. After a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and assigned 3 percent liability to Dr. Ranzini. The trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for Dr. Ranzini. The trial court held that the Good Samaritan Act did not insulate Dr. Ranzini from suit, but that her liability could not be regarded as a "substantial factor" in the harm that resulted to Conor. The plaintiffs appealed challenging, inter alia, the JNOV. Dr. Ranzini cross-appealed the trial court's ruling that the Good Samaritan Act did not immunize her from suit. Dr. Ranzini maintained that a physician is immunized under the Act so long as he or she acts in the absence of a duty to do so. The Appellate Division reversed the JNOV and rejected Dr. Ranzini's cross-appeal. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Dr. Ranzini's petition for certification as to the applicability of the Act to in-hospital emergencies.

COURT'S OPINION: The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the state's Good Samaritan Act encompassed only those situations in which a physician or other volunteer comes, by chance, upon a victim who requires immediate emergency medical care, at a location compromised by lack of adequate facilities, equipment, expertise, sanitation, and staff. It does not provide immunity to a hospital physician who assists a patient in a hospital during an emergency.

LEGAL COMMENTARY: The goal of Good Samaritan legislation is to encourage the rendering of medical care to those who need it but otherwise might not receive it by persons who come upon such victims by chance, without the accoutrements provided in a medical facility, including expertise, assistance, sanitation, or equipment. The court noted that very few judicial decisions interpreting the category of statutes that neither expressly exclude nor expressly include in-hospital emergency medical care are in equipoise. Courts in Arizona, Indiana, and Oklahoma support the position that Good Samaritan Acts do not immunize physicians in hospitals. On the other hand, Illinois, Georgia, and Utah support the position that Good Samaritan Acts immunize physicians in hospitals.

Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for nearly 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island law firm of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Reagan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers and Marquis Who's Who in American Law.