Collins v. St. Vincent Hosp., Inc.
415 P.3d 1012
N.M. Ct. App.2017Background
- William “Mack” Vaughan presented to St. Vincent Hospital ER in Aug. 2002 with abdominal pain; CT scan suggested diverticular abscess but also possible neoplasm. A radiologist (Dr. Damron) dictated a report; treating clinicians did not receive or recall the written report and Vaughan was discharged with antibiotics.
- Vaughan did not follow recommended follow-up; over the next year he had intermittent care, and in Oct. 2003 was diagnosed with sigmoid colon cancer; he died in 2010 of metastatic disease.
- Vaughan (later his estate/personal representative) sued St. Vincent alleging the hospital negligently failed to deliver the CT report to treating physicians or to Vaughan. The claim on remand was limited to direct hospital negligence (system/communication failures); the parties stipulated that the doctors were not negligent.
- At trial plaintiff sought an apparent-agency instruction (UJI 13-1120B) modified to impose hospital liability for the apparent agents’ "conduct" (not limited to negligent conduct); the court limited the apparent-agency instruction to punitive-damages context only and refused plaintiff’s broader instruction as untimely and inconsistent with trial strategy.
- The jury found the hospital negligent but answered that any negligence of the hospital was not a cause of Vaughan’s death; the district court entered judgment for the hospital. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a hospital can be directly liable for the non-negligent "conduct" of its apparent agents (i.e., instruction changing UJI 13-1120B "negligence" to "conduct"). | Collins: hospital liability for apparent-agent actions should extend to all attributable conduct (negligent or not); UJI 13-1120B should be given with "conduct." | St. Vincent: apparent-agency/vicarious-liability principles in UJI 13-1120B are limited to provider negligence and were not in issue because parties stipulated providers were not negligent. | Court: refusal to give the broadened instruction was not error — plaintiff tried the case on direct hospital negligence (system failures) and had stipulated provider non-negligence; expanding law to attribute non-negligent conduct to hospital would be a policy change for the Supreme Court. |
| Whether the court’s supplemental instruction responding to juror question (limiting agency consideration to punitive damages) confused jury and compelled a no-causation verdict. | Collins: the court’s supplemental answer unduly emphasized that physicians could only be considered employees/apparent agents for punitive damages, leading jury to ignore attribution for causation. | St. Vincent: trial strategy, stipulated non-negligence, and the evidence supported jury finding of other causes; supplemental instruction fairly answered the jury’s question. | Court: supplemental instruction did not amount to reversible error; jury could have reasonably concluded hospital negligence did not cause death given the evidence and trial framing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zamora v. St. Vincent Hosp., 335 P.3d 1243 (N.M. 2014) (held initial complaint gave adequate notice to hospital of apparent-agency/vicarious-liability malpractice theory and remanded for trial)
- Houghland v. Grant, 891 P.2d 563 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (discussed apparent agency and hospital vicarious liability for non-employee physicians)
- Grassie v. Roswell Hosp. Corp., 258 P.3d 1075 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (discussed cumulative-conduct theory as relevant to punitive damages)
- Arroyo v. Jones, 685 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1982) (explained why supplemental jury instructions receive special emphasis and must be carefully given)
- Strosnider v. State Hwy. Dep’t, 747 P.2d 254 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (explained that requested instruction must be supported by evidence and law to be given)