Utah's "Good Samaritan Act" protects doctors who volunteer their services during emergencies in their own hospitals, the Utah Supreme Court said Friday.
However, it's a qualified protection that doesn't apply to doctors who by contract or custom have a duty to respond to such emergencies, the justices ruled.Hailed as an important extension of the Good Samaritan Act to a hospital setting, the unanimous ruling may also clear the way for a family to pursue a federal lawsuit against Intermountain Health Care's Logan Regional Hospital and its medical director.
The wrongful death lawsuit was filed in 1994 by the family of Yeshi Wordoffa, who died in 1989 of heart failure during childbirth at the hospital.
According to court documents, Wordoffa, who was in active labor, became unresponsive and went into spasm soon after she was admitted to the hospital. Her obstetrician immediately delivered the baby and issued a "Code Blue" - a call for emergency assistance - over the intercom.
The call was answered by Dr. Merrill C. Daines, the hospital's medical director and a specialist in internal medicine, cardiology and emergency medicine. He took over the emergency treatment, which continued until Wordoffa was declared dead 17 minutes later.
Wordoffa's husband, Haile Hirpa, and her three children, alleged in the suit that IHC and the doctors who treated Wordoffa were negligent for not following a protocol that could have detected a rheumatoid arthritis condition that affected her heart.
Daines argued he was acting as a volunteer and therefore immune from liability under the Good Samaritan Act. The state filed a memorandum in the federal case seeking a liberal interpretation of the law to encourage physicians to offer their assistance in hospital emergencies when they are under no obligation to do so.
The act states that no licensed medical provider "who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions" while providing that care.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Greene ruled that Daines was protected by the act because he had no pre-existing duty to Wordoffa. The family then appealed to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which said it needed a clarification from the Utah Supreme Court before ruling on the appeal.
Writing for the court, Justice Richard C. Howe said, "We conclude that doctors are protected by the Good Samaritan Act when they respond to an in-hospital emergency if they have no pre-existing duty to do so." (The emphasis is Howe's.)
Howe said it's generally recognized that the primary purpose of Good Samaritan laws is to encourage medical personnel to provide prompt emergency care by removing the fear of liability. That holds true in the hospital setting as well, he said.
However, the protection doesn't extend to someone "compelled by a legal duty to act," Howe wrote. For example, a doctor on call or "otherwise contractually obligated to respond" may not be considered a volunteer. Nor may someone who responds to such emergencies by "practice or custom."
Salt Lake attorney Patricia W. Christensen, who is representing Wordoffa's three surviving children in the federal appeal, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling as a "very reasonable, rational interpretation of the Good Samaritan Act."
She believes the 10th Circuit Court will now reverse the lower court and remand the case for trial to determine whether Daines was acting through duty or as a volunteer.
Attorneys for IHC and Daines could not be reached for comment Friday.