The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation does not have charitable immunity, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled unanimously today.
“HSF operates like a profitable commercial business with extensive revenue and assets. That portion of HSF’s services providing quality medical care to medically indigent patients is commendable,” Justice Donald W. Lemons wrote for the court in University of Virginia Health Services Foundation v. Morris. “However, when an organization is operated ‘in a manner calculated to produce a profit or gain,’ it is not entitled to charitable immunity.”
Judges in Norfolk and Portsmouth had granted charitable immunity to the HSF’s counterpart at the Eastern Virginia Medical Schools, but circuit judges sitting in Charlottesville Circuit Court had split on the issue with Judge Edward L. Hogshire of Charlottesville and H. Thomas Padrick Jr. of Virginia Beach, sitting by designation, finding it not to be charity, and Judge Randy I. Bellows of Fairfax, also sitting by designation, ruling that it is.
Showing posts with label Medical malpractice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medical malpractice. Show all posts
Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Medical malpractice cases revived
No expert testimony is needed to establish that a dialysis center was negligent in placing a patient in a chair that collapsed—twice, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled today.
“The issue of the defendant’s acts of medical negligence regarding the defective chair is quite simple and within the common knowledge of a lay jury,” the court held.
The case of Coston v. Bio-Medical Applications of Virginia Inc. was one of two medical malpractice cases the court reinstated.
In the second, Lloyd v. Kime MD, the court held that a neurologist who no longer performs surgery or has an active clinical practice nevertheless could testify about postoperative treatment by an orthopedist of a man who underwent a cervical diskectomy. The neurologist also could testify about the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, but he could not testify about the standard of care during the operation itself, the court held.
“The issue of the defendant’s acts of medical negligence regarding the defective chair is quite simple and within the common knowledge of a lay jury,” the court held.
The case of Coston v. Bio-Medical Applications of Virginia Inc. was one of two medical malpractice cases the court reinstated.
In the second, Lloyd v. Kime MD, the court held that a neurologist who no longer performs surgery or has an active clinical practice nevertheless could testify about postoperative treatment by an orthopedist of a man who underwent a cervical diskectomy. The neurologist also could testify about the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, but he could not testify about the standard of care during the operation itself, the court held.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Supreme Court hears charitable immunity cases
Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell Sr. noted that the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation pays annual bonuses ranging from $70,000 to more than $850,000 to physicians who work at U.Va. Hospital.
“To me, it raises a big eyebrow,” Hassell told Charlottesville lawyer Donald R. Morin, who was trying to convince the Supreme Court of Virginia that the foundation has charitable immunity.
Morin responded that those amounts must be considered in the context of the salaries necessary to attract the best talent to a world-class medical school.
Hassell countered with a chuckle, “I think I’m on a world-class court, too,” adding that he and his colleagues get no such bonus.
The court heard arguments today in two cases in which Charlottesville Circuit Judge Edward L. Hogshire found that the foundation does not have immunity and one from Fairfax Circuit Judge Randy I. Bellows, who sat in the Charlottesville court by designation and found that it does.
Morin fielded far more questions than the attorneys who argued for the plaintiffs, Matthew B. Murray, R. Frazier Solsberry and L. Steven Emmert.
Justice G. Steven Agee focused, for example, on how those bonuses are determined. He noted that they are based on the amount of income generated by the physicians and their departments rather than on the amount of charitable work that they do.
The justices did not seem to be impressed, however, by arguments that the foundation gets its status as a charitable institution for tax purposes from support of the university and its hospital rather than from its own independent status as a charity.
That election for tax purposes has little to say about whether it meets the criteria for charitable immunity that the court established in Ola v. YMCA of South Hampton Roads Inc. (VLW 005-6-098), Justice Donald W. Lemons said.
“To me, it raises a big eyebrow,” Hassell told Charlottesville lawyer Donald R. Morin, who was trying to convince the Supreme Court of Virginia that the foundation has charitable immunity.
Morin responded that those amounts must be considered in the context of the salaries necessary to attract the best talent to a world-class medical school.
Hassell countered with a chuckle, “I think I’m on a world-class court, too,” adding that he and his colleagues get no such bonus.
The court heard arguments today in two cases in which Charlottesville Circuit Judge Edward L. Hogshire found that the foundation does not have immunity and one from Fairfax Circuit Judge Randy I. Bellows, who sat in the Charlottesville court by designation and found that it does.
Morin fielded far more questions than the attorneys who argued for the plaintiffs, Matthew B. Murray, R. Frazier Solsberry and L. Steven Emmert.
Justice G. Steven Agee focused, for example, on how those bonuses are determined. He noted that they are based on the amount of income generated by the physicians and their departments rather than on the amount of charitable work that they do.
The justices did not seem to be impressed, however, by arguments that the foundation gets its status as a charitable institution for tax purposes from support of the university and its hospital rather than from its own independent status as a charity.
That election for tax purposes has little to say about whether it meets the criteria for charitable immunity that the court established in Ola v. YMCA of South Hampton Roads Inc. (VLW 005-6-098), Justice Donald W. Lemons said.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Supreme Court affirms large awards
It was a good day in the Supreme Court of Virginia for the holders of big verdicts.
The court affirmed seven-figure judgments in four cases with nothing in common other than the size of the awards.
In Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner v. Target Corp., the court upheld an award of $3.3 million in damages to the residue of the property taken in the condemnation of land taken for the expansion of Roberts Parkway in Fairfax County.
The retailer contended that the project hampered the visibility of its store. The court ruled that the commissioner had not preserved its objection to visibility as an element of damages but emphasized that whether it can be remains unresolved.
In John Crane Inc. v. Jones, the court affirmed a $3.4 million award for estate of a man who died from mesothelioma contracted while installing asbestos insulation on ships at Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.
In King v. Cooley, the court upheld a $1.65 million judgment for a woman who contended that she suffered a permanent brain injury from complications of gastric bypass surgery.
In Banks v. Mario Industries, the court affirmed a $1.6 million judgment for a lighting manufacturer and supply company against former employees who left the company to form a competing business. The company alleged tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty and related legal theories.
The court affirmed seven-figure judgments in four cases with nothing in common other than the size of the awards.
In Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner v. Target Corp., the court upheld an award of $3.3 million in damages to the residue of the property taken in the condemnation of land taken for the expansion of Roberts Parkway in Fairfax County.
The retailer contended that the project hampered the visibility of its store. The court ruled that the commissioner had not preserved its objection to visibility as an element of damages but emphasized that whether it can be remains unresolved.
In John Crane Inc. v. Jones, the court affirmed a $3.4 million award for estate of a man who died from mesothelioma contracted while installing asbestos insulation on ships at Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.
In King v. Cooley, the court upheld a $1.65 million judgment for a woman who contended that she suffered a permanent brain injury from complications of gastric bypass surgery.
In Banks v. Mario Industries, the court affirmed a $1.6 million judgment for a lighting manufacturer and supply company against former employees who left the company to form a competing business. The company alleged tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty and related legal theories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
