*1 SOLE, DEL Before EAKIN and TODD, JJ. SOLE,

DEL J.: ¶ 1 appeal This is an from a judgment defendant, Conemaugh entered favor of Hospital), Memorial after a finding Hospi- returned verdict negligent, tal was but not a substantial factor in bringing Appellant’s harm. filed trial, seeking a new which were denied. This followed. We affirm.

¶ 2 This by Appel- action was initiated seeking lant for a facial recovery nerve injury following Hospital. left ear at the alleged that surgeon performing encountered uncontrollable bleeding him to abort causing proce- Appellant’s expert dure. at trial testified that the excessive was caused drug Naprosyn use of the days surgery and within before this bleed- ing put Appellant increased at an risk for during surgery. Appel- facial nerve indicating lant offered evidence nursing staff inform the surgeon his had used this surgery, utilize the “Chain Command” *2 861 who had taken policy on a stop to sur- own Hospital of the surgery of Naprosyn gery. voluntari- if the and that ¶ claims, as Appellant she operation that Cone- ly postpone the motions, that the court post-trial in her administrators, maugh’s supervisors and cor failing charge jury in to on erred of command through its chain acting corpo of theory The porate negligence. the sur- prevented policy, should by our recognized was first negligence rate forward. gery going from Thompson in v. Nason Supreme Court (1991). 527 Pa. 591 A.2d Hospital, ¶ the trial court agree 6 We with a it was found that owes Therein which, under the one that this claim is directly non-delegable to its some duties case, does not facts of this injured par patients, requiring without an Appel on charge ty of a third negligence to establish the Hospital did asserting that the lant is not doctrine, at 707. Under this party. Id. policy, command rather not have a chain of uphold liable if fails to hospital is nursing that staff the claim is one pa to proper of care owed its the instituted negligently failed follow plaintiff must tient. The show of chain command hospital had actual or constructive knowl any did not offer evidence of the defect or edge place in was deficient and policy hospital’s created harm of have known knew should in negligence was a substantial factor suggested It was not its deficiencies. bringing about the harm. Id. at 708. routinely failing to were institute nurses explaining rejecting its decision The points charge Appellant’s request for the nurses failed to act simply claim is corporate negligence, on Hospital’s appropriately in this case. The in policy noted that the did have would be based liability in this situation surgeon’s effect to override decision on actions of staff. negligent operate. The trial court remarked: liability. on vicarious charged The was presented by The claim Plaintiff actual was that nurses failed to activate the appeal Appellant suggests 7 On in policy this instance. in “systematic” negligence presented no Plaintiff evidence Hospital did maintains the this case. She Hospital had or con- Defendant actual specific policy concerning not have a not structive notice that the nurses had was no and that there use of this policy followed Chain of Command an to inform the policy Therefore, instance. there can surgeon’s policy regarding individual fail- be no claim for negligence While drug prior use adopt adequate poli- ure or enforce theory corpo may support such Hospital, behalf of the negligence rate opinion Trial court fails us on presented such court cor- show our the trial From review post-trial mo Further her theory of claim at trial. rectly summarized theory not the Appel- indicates that was the case. In her not appellant can trial. An lant states: offered at trial theory of relief present one theory basically that De- Plaintiffs was pursue a different court and Plaintiff fendant was liable to Family Part Rappaport appeal. Samuel bring to the its nurses had failed Bank, nership v. Meridian perform- was surgeon’s attention that he (1995). 657 A.2d of his elective 8 Appellant offer evidence from the 1 Because I believe that under Welsh staff which indicated that they (1997), 548 Pa. any regard were told of an instruction on the issue of the use of and that were in this surgeon’s unaware of policy. Expert respectfully dissent. *3 testimony was also opining that In Welsh v. an infant later use of Naprosyn the likely was the cause injuries died the negligently as result of in this case. there is during delivery. inflicted Monitoring nothing in the record on equipment indicated that the was not fetus the failure to have a regarding sufficient receiving blood flow because the usage was substandard compressed. Despite umbilical cord was hospital and the knew or should have the indications that cesarean section known of its need to formulate a policy. performed, should the baby be was deliv- expert testimony No is included in vaginally ered and permanent identifying procedures record jury. expert An report provided by the employed by hospitals regarding drug poli- plaintiff indicated that the nurses should Likewise, there is sug- no evidence have known about deteriorating the child’s gesting that hospital failed to have a condition and notify that their failure to policy that hospitals other routinely em- hospital authorities resulted in the child’s or ploy that it independently should have injuries.

recognized a specific drug poli- need that, Supreme Our held based cy- report, made a plaintiff had Brandywine, Edwards v. ;prima hospital against facie (1995) corporate Thompson v. negligence under court a claim regarding considered Hosp., Nason A.2d 703 Pa. defendant-hospital’s deficiencies of the lab- (1991). The Court said: oratory procedures. notification The court In support of claims for hospital found have a notifica- negligence, [plaintiff] the ex- relies on procedure plain- report pert of Dr. Warner. She first tiff failed provide any evidence “that a report claims this establishes hospital” require reasonable would a dif- hospital was corporately negligent for ferent Similarly, notification report failure to monitor and this case a chain of command condition, child’s is a existed. The staff failed to follow that duty persons all who offer evi- hospital” dence that “a its walls as reasonable would medicine within care, have additional regarding duty third under specific usage prior Thompson. light Read in the most fa- may While we imagine well that would [plaintiff] nonmoving as the vorable prudent be necessary for a party, report that Dr. shows Warner system place, such a there is noth- opined that nurses breached the suggest in the standard of care must have was so advised at trial. Appellant’s theory problem known that at imple- trial focused on failure to delivery but failed to act ment knowledge. Dr. Warner concluded facts a corporate these warrant factor in breach was a substantial liability charge. bringing the harm to the deceased Judgment affirmed. if when he concluded had notified the of the need for ¶ 11 Judge dissenting TODD files a section, would cesarean then opinion. Thus, not have Dr. occurred. Warner’s TODD, J., dissenting: prima report is sufficient to negligence for facie Hospital’s failure to oversee Nason practice medicine within its

walls as to care.

Welsh, 548 Pa. at 698 A.2d at 586 omitted).

(footnote Thus, Welsh, the to moni- the nurses of sup- sufficient to

tor and was alone

port a claim of 4 In instant the evidence failed to

trial showed that

inform the recent- Welsh,

ly Naprosyn. taken Under care standard of failure to supported a surgeon)

condition to the

claim that the violated its medicine

within its walls as to care. The

duty to oversee is one of the duties under supports of which

Thompson, the breach Welsh, Thus, I

Pa. at 698 A.2d at 585. corporate negligence

believe a instruction basis. erroneously 5 Because give corporate negligence

struction, I would reverse and remand for respectfully Accordingly,

a new trial.

dissent.

Yvette Gerald BROWN

Brown, Appellees,

PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE,

OSTEOPATHIC

Appellant. Pennsylvania.

Superior Court of 22, 2000.

Argued March 30, 2000. Aug.

Reargument and Reconsideration 2, 2000.

Denied Nov.