Lane v. Provo Rehabilitation and Nursing
2018 UT App 10
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Jackie Adams, a resident at Provo Rehabilitation and Nursing, was given three potent opioid doses prescribed for another patient by a licensed practical nurse (Nurse) during a medication pass; Nurse later discovered the error.
- Nurse concealed the error: she administered the correct (but already-misallocated) narcotics to the other patient, falsified records, checked on Adams during the shift, and informed no one; Adams did not receive naloxone and later was found unresponsive and died.
- Plaintiff (Adams’s heir) sued Nurse and Provo Rehab. Provo Rehab conceded Nurse’s initial medication error and vicarious liability for that error but argued Nurse’s later concealment (not the error) proximately caused the death and that Provo Rehab was not vicariously liable for the concealment.
- The trial court refused Plaintiff’s pretrial motion to impute Nurse’s knowledge to Provo Rehab and allowed a special verdict asking the jury whether Nurse acted within the scope of employment when she concealed the error and to apportion fault between the Medication Error and the Concealment.
- Jury found Nurse was not acting within scope when she concealed, allocated 65% fault to the Medication Error and 35% to the Concealment, and awarded total damages of $1,407,210.68; trial court entered judgment for 65% of that amount against Provo Rehab.
- On appeal, the court held Nurse’s knowledge of the Medication Error was imputed to Provo Rehab as a matter of law, eliminating any concealment from Provo Rehab and removing any basis to apportion fault; it vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for the full jury award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Provo Rehab's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nurse’s knowledge of the medication error should be imputed to Provo Rehab | Nurse’s knowledge acquired while acting within scope of employment is imputed to Provo Rehab, so Provo Rehab knew of the error when it occurred | Imputation is inapplicable here; Wardley limits imputation to contexts where the principal is held responsible for its own act | Imputation applies: Nurse’s knowledge of the error is imputed to Provo Rehab as a matter of law |
| Whether the jury could apportion fault between the Medication Error and the Concealment | Imputation means there was no concealment from Provo Rehab, so apportionment was improper | The Concealment was a separate, non‑vicarious act that proximately caused the death, permitting apportionment | Because imputation removes any concealment from Provo Rehab, apportionment between error and concealment was erroneous |
| Whether Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of proximate causation tying the Medication Error alone to death | Medical experts established the overdose set in motion a continuous chain leading to death and naloxone would likely have prevented it; thus proximate causation established | Plaintiff’s expert did not opine medication error alone (separate from concealment) was proximate cause; causation evidence insufficient—directed verdict or JNOV warranted | With imputation eliminating concealment, both experts’ testimony that the overdose started an unbroken fatal process (reversible by naloxone) was sufficient to establish proximate causation |
| Appropriate remedy for the trial errors | Vacate and enter judgment for the full jury award (no apportionment) | Prefer a new trial or judgment in favor of Provo Rehab based on insufficient causation | Vacated the judgment; remanded for entry of judgment for the full damages amount awarded by the jury plus costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Wardley Better Homes & Gardens v. Cannon, 61 P.3d 1009 (Utah 2002) (discusses scope and breadth of imputation of an agent’s knowledge to a principal)
- Sculptured Software, Inc. v. 24 P.3d 984 (Utah 2001) (imputation of agent knowledge can bar a principal’s claim where agent knew relevant facts)
- Hodges v. Gibson Products Co., 811 P.2d 151 (Utah 1991) (application of imputed knowledge in vicarious-liability contexts)
- Latses v. Nick Floor, Inc., 104 P.2d 619 (Utah 1940) (articulating broad rule that agent knowledge within scope of authority is imputed to principal)
- Morgan v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 263 P.3d 405 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (elements of medical-malpractice claim, including proximate causation)