Nurse blows whistle on EMT's dereliction of duty.
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MINNESOTA AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IN GRANTING THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The court held, inter alia, that the EMT's defamation and related claims were barred either by absolute immunity or a qualified privilege. Absolute immunity bars a defamation suit where doing so serves the public interest by allowing government officials to freely address matters pertinent to the performance of their assigned duties. The court noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a state trooper's statements in an arrest report were immune because such statements are part of the trooper's job, provide useful information for his superiors and other officials, and play an important part in achieving a fair trial. In addition, the court relied on the tact that allowing civil suits could deter officers from "fearlessly and vigorously preparing a detailed, accurate report." The court found that Nurse Keimig, who was not a member of the Ambulance Board, was protected by a qualified privilege. Such privilege applied because she showed that she made the allegedly defamatory statements "in good faith ... upon a proper occasion, with a proper motive, and ... upon reasonable or probable cause." The court was convinced that the record showed, by clear and convincing evidence, that Nurse Keimig reported her observations only to relevant parties, and that she considered it part of her job to do so. She reported her observations promptly, and only reduced them to writing when asked to do so by relevant authorities. She directly observed the reported actions, and her reports were, therefore, supported by probable cause.
WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT SO LONG AS THEY ACT WITHOUT MALICE AND OR PREJUDICE TO THE OBJECT OF THEIR CRITICISM. What is most impressive about the court's characterization of Nurse Keimig's role in the case is the fact that the court recognized that "she considered it part of her job to do so." Had Nurse Keimig failed to report the dereliction of duty of the EMT to her superiors she would have failed in fulfilling her duties as a nurse. Whenever any nurse observes behavior that is below the applicable standard of care, not only should he or she report it to their superiors, but they must report it to their superiors. Fortunately, the good faith reporting of any misconduct insulates nurses, as well as other health care professionals from liability. Baybridge v. City of Ortonville, 2009-MN-0408.128 (4/7/2009)-MN
Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing lab for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island 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 Regan 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, Marquis Who's Who in American Law, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Tammelleo, A. David|
|Publication:||Nursing Law's Regan Report|
|Article Type:||Case overview|
|Date:||Aug 1, 2009|
|Previous Article:||Florida's birth-related injury 'plan' no bar to suit.|
|Next Article:||Is contraction of Hepatitis B occupational hazard?|