O'Brien v. Synnott
72 A.3d 331
Vt.2013Background
- O’Brien sued Fletcher Allen Health Care (FAHC) and nurse Catherine Synnott for drawing his blood at the request of law enforcement without his consent and for injuries from an alleged police assault after unsupervised access in the hospital.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding no reasonably foreseeable risk of harm and that the nurse had apparent consent to draw the blood.
- Plaintiff's account, disputed on several points, places him in the PACU recovering from surgery when officers accessed his room and attempted to obtain a blood sample by force.
- The nurse then drew his blood, purportedly as his medical provider but for a nonmedical purpose of supplying blood to the police, without disclosing this to plaintiff.
- Plaintiff claimed a battery and a negligence claim (and argued that expert testimony was unnecessary for the battery claim); the court found for defendants on negligence and granted summary judgment on the battery claim based on apparent consent.
- On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the negligence ruling and reversed the battery ruling, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence duty to protect from third-party attack | O’Brien alleges defendants had a duty to protect him from a foreseeable third-party threat. | Defendants argue no duty for unforeseeable third-party attacks; foreseeability not shown. | Affirmed: no liability for negligence. |
| Battery due to nonmedical blood draw without informed consent | Consented to medical care generally but not to a nonmedical blood draw for police. | Apparent consent existed because of police request and lack of objection, and nurse acted within medical context. | Reversed: lack of apparent consent; battery may be viable. |
| Statutory consent immunity under 23 V.S.A. §1202 | §1202 does not immunize medical personnel from liability when consent is lacking. | §1202 immunizes in some contexts or creates implied consent. | Not applicable to immunize here; police request does not shield from liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Harris, 190 Vt. 647, 36 A.3d 203 (2011 VT) (standard for de novo review on summary judgment; evidence must show a genuine issue)
- Endres v. Endres, 185 Vt. 63, 968 A.2d 336 (2008 VT) (duty to protect against unforeseeable third-party attacks; foreseeability analysis)
- Christman v. Davis, 179 Vt. 99, 889 A.2d 746 (2005 VT) (distinguishes consent to medical procedure from lack of informed consent)
- Reed v. Glynn, 168 Vt. 504, 724 A.2d 464 (1998 VT) (legislative balance in conflicting considerations; legislature determines scope)