In 1992, Kimberly Starnes was hospitalized at Santa Rosa Children's Hospital ("SRCH") for intestinal distress and dehydration. Dr. Robin Hardiman was a Brooke Army Medical Center resident on pediatric surgical rotation at SRCH, a private hospital, pursuant to a military training agreement between the United States Army and SRCH. Hardiman inserted a venous catheter line that perforated Kimberly's heart. Starnes died the following day. Starnes' parents ("plaintiffs") sued the United States in federal district court in Texas under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), alleging that Hardiman's negligent placement of the subclavian line caused Starnes' death. The district court held that Hardiman was the borrowed servant of SRCH and the United States was not liable for her activities, and entered summary judgment for the United States. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and reversed. The appeals court examined which party had right to control the residents' activities and concluded that the physician was not the borrowed servant of the hospital, based on the agreement between the United States Army and the hospital, testimony of physicians at the hospital, and state common law. The agreement stated that the resident is responsible for patient care and the United States is liable for the negligence of the resident while the resident is undergoing training. The district court had concluded that Hardiman was the borrowed servant of SRCH because the agreement specifies that the residents are under the supervision of the medical specialty teaching chiefs; the appeals court found that this placed the residents under the control of the teaching chiefs, no the hospital itself. Those physicians are independent contractors with privileges at the hospital, and under Texas law, hospitals are not liable for the negligence of physicians who are independent contractors. Finally, the court noted that Texas courts have not applied the borrowed servant doctrine to physicians. The appeals court concluded that the borrowed servant defense therefore did not apply to absolve the government for liability for Hardiman's negligence, and it reversed and remanded the district court's judgment.
Return to Dr. Hookman's Home Page