A California hospital is not liable for negligence or elder abuse, both of which were alleged in a lawsuit originally filed by a man who sustained second-degree burns while undergoing an MRI scan.
The adverse incident occurred in 2016 at 515-bed Glendale Adventist Medical Center. Elderly patient Nick Kruthanooch presented to the hospital’s emergency department with weakness and lightheadedness on top of numerous chronic conditions.
According to court documents released Oct. 4 by California’s second appellate district, an ED physician sent Kruthanooch for an electrocardiogram (ECG) followed by an MRI.
The MRI technologist failed to remove the ECG pads before performing the scan, and conductive materials in one of the pads seriously burned the patient on the abdomen.
The hospital admitted Kruthanooch that same day, discharged him two days later and continued treating the wound in outpatient settings for several weeks.
When Kruthanooch sued Glendale Adventist, the primary allegations he leveled were for professional negligence and elder abuse.
Slim Evidence Establishing Care or Custody
The case went to trial in 2019, by which time Kruthanooch had died and his son had replaced him as plaintiff and estate representative.
The trial’s jury concluded that the hospital had care or custody of Kruthanooch the day of the injury.
The jury further determined that the technologist, acting as a “managing agent” of Glendale Adventist, failed to use a reasonable measure of care by inadequately screening the patient for potential MRI hazards. By these inactions, the jury suggested, the hospital evidenced a “reckless” disregard for safety.
The jury did not award damages, though, and Glendale Adventist filed a motion to dismiss.
The hospital based its motion on a lack of evidence showing it had established a sustained relationship of “care or custody” over Kruthanooch as required by California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA).
That was the view the appeals court upheld earlier this month.
Appeals Court: ‘It Is Unnecessary for Us to Address Whether the Hospital Acted Recklessly’
In the Oct. 4 decision document, the court writes:
“We decline to reach the remaining grounds on which the [2019] court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and the issues raised in the cross-appeal.”
More:
Having concluded that substantial evidence does not support that there was a robust caretaking or custodial relationship between Kruthanooch and Glendale Adventist Medical Center (GAMC), or that GAMC’s failure to properly screen Kruthanooch prior to the MRI scan was neglect as contemplated by the [Elder Abuse] Act, it is unnecessary for us to address whether GAMC acted recklessly. It is also unnecessary for us to address the issues raised in GAMC’s protective cross-appeal.”
Along with affirming the hospital’s case for overturning the 2019 jury judgment, the appeals court ruled that Glendale Adventist Medical Center may recover costs.
The decision document is posted in full here.
Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.