Carr et al v. Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, LLC. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) The Hospital's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff's negligent credentialing claims (Doc. # 100 ) is DENIED; (2) The Hospital's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff& #039;s negligence-per-se claims found in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint (Doc. # 100 ) is GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Supplement (Doc. # 138 ) is GRANTED; and (4) The Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Five of the Complaint (Doc. # 112 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 10/31/2017.(KJA)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-138-DLB-HAI
GEOFFREY CARR, as Guardian of
the Estate of Joseph Carr
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LAKE CUMBERLAND REGIONAL
HOSPITAL, et al.
*** *** *** *** ***
This is a medical-negligence action brought by Plaintiff Geoffrey Carr, as the
Guardian of the Estate of the incompetent Joseph Carr, against the doctor—Doctor John
Husted—who performed Joseph’s bariatric surgery, and the hospital where the bariatric
surgery was performed—Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital (“Hospital”). This matter is
currently before the Court on three motions: (1) the Hospital’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings; (2) the Hospital’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and (3) Plaintiff’s
unopposed Motion to Supplement his Response to the Hospital’s Motion for Partial
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2009, Doctor Husted performed bariatric surgery on Plaintiff at the
Commonwealth Bariatric Center in Pulaski County, Kentucky. (Doc. # 1-3 at ¶¶ 9, 34).
Commonwealth Bariatric Center is a business operated by the Hospital. Id. at ¶ 9.
After the surgery, Plaintiff allegedly began experiencing respiratory problems,
which his primary care physicians believed to be allergies. Id. at ¶ 65. However, Plaintiff
asserts that on or around July 10, 2014, he discovered that he had been aspirating food
into his lungs, possibly as a result of the bariatric surgery. Id. at ¶ 66-67. On or about
March 19, 2015, Plaintiff underwent revision surgery, at which point Plaintiff allegedly
learned that Doctor Husted had “performed a surgery that appeared incomplete and had
left [Plaintiff] with permanent revisions of his anatomy not recognizable as any approved
bariatric surgery.” Id. at ¶ 68.
Plaintiff alleges that without his consent, Doctor Husted performed an
“unrecognized, unaccepted, and experimental procedure” on him.
Id. at ¶¶ 34-35.
Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Husted did not have the privileges to perform the surgery as
it was performed. Id. at ¶ 38. According to Plaintiff, before his surgery, the Hospital was
or should have been on notice of numerous concerns over the results of surgeries that
Doctor Husted had performed. Id. at ¶ 40.
As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 9, 2015, in the Pulaski County
Circuit Court. Id.at 5. Plaintiff’s complaint asserted eleven causes of action against
Doctor Husted and the Hospital. Id. at 17-27. The Hospital removed this case from the
Pulaski County Circuit Court on July 31, 2015, with Doctor Husted’s consent, based on
diversity jurisdiction. (Docs. # 1 and 5).
In the instant motions, the Hospital seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s negligent
credentialing claim and negligence-per-se claims (Doc. # 100). The Hospital has also
moved for summary judgment on Count Five, Plaintiff’s claims of negligent training and
negligent supervision. (Doc. # 112).1 The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is fully
briefed (Docs. # 128 and 142), as is the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. # 126
Standards of Review
The Court reviews motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(c) under a standard nearly identical to that employed when the
Court considers a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Sensations,
Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 2008). Both motions require a
court to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and to accept all
of the complaint’s factual allegations as true. Penny/Olhmann/Nieman, Inc. v. Miami
Valley Pension Corp., 399 F.3d 692, 697 (6th Cir. 2005). This Court need not, however,
“accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.” Mixon v. Ohio, 193
F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999). “A motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(c) is appropriately
granted ‘when no material issue of fact exists and the party making the motion is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.’” Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, L.L.C., 539 F.3d
545, 549 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577,
582 (6th Cir. 2007)).
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). The moving party has the initial burden of “showing the absence of any genuine
issues of material fact.” Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 483 (6th Cir.
The Hospital’s evidence in support of its Summary Judgment Motion consists of excerpts of
depositions and an agreement between it and Doctor Husted. (Docs. # 112-2 through 112-6).
2008). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must cite to
evidence in the record upon which “a reasonable jury could return a verdict” in its favor;
a mere “scintilla of evidence” will not do. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248-52 (1986). At the summary-judgment stage, a court “views the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party’s
favor.” Slusher v. Carson, 540 F.3d 449, 453 (6th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff’s negligent-credentialing claim will not be dismissed.
In its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Hospital claims that Counts Two
and Five must be dismissed because Kentucky does not recognize the tort of negligent
(Doc. # 100-1).
The Kentucky Supreme Court has not yet directly
addressed this question; therefore, this Court must make “the best prediction … of what
the Kentucky Supreme Court would do if confronted with [the] question.” Combs v. Int’l
Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
The Sixth Circuit has warned that federal courts sitting in diversity “should be
extremely cautious about adopting ‘substantive innovation’ in state law.” Id. at 578
(internal citations omitted). “[W]here a state appellate court has resolved an issue to
which the high court has not spoken” the Court treats that resolution as “authoritative
absent a strong showing that the state’s highest court would decide the issue differently.”
Id. (citing Kirk v. Hanes, 16 F.3d 705, 707 (6th Cir. 1994); Garrett v. Akron-Cleveland Auto
Rental, Inc., 921 F2d 659, 662 (6th Cir. 1990)).
“[F]ederal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.”
Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 416 (1997). Here, Kentucky law governs Plaintiff’s
The tort of negligent credentialing is unsettled in Kentucky. In 2011, the Kentucky
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a Hopkins County Circuit Court decision for two
reasons, finding both evidentiary error and error in the lower court’s determination that
the tort of negligent credentialing was not viable in Kentucky. Estate of Burton v. Trover,
No. 2009-CA-1595 (Ky. Ct. App. June 10, 2011). The Court of Appeals opined that “it is
proper for this Court to now recognize the tort of negligent credentialing in Kentucky.” Id.
at 5. On appeal from this decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the Court of
Appeals’ decision on the evidentiary error, and explicitly declined to either reverse or
affirm the recognition of the tort of negligent credentialing. Trover v. Estate of Burton,
423 S.W.3d 165, 167-68 (Ky. 2014) (“As it happens, our review convinces us that the trial
court’s evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of its discretion, as held by the Court of
Appeals, and so we are constrained simply to reinstate the trial court’s judgment and to
leave for another day consideration of a negligent credentialing cause of action.”).
Two years later, in an unpublished decision, another panel of the Kentucky Court
of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion, “declin[ing] to recognize the tort of negligent
credentialing.” Brown v. Trover, No. 2012-CA-1880, 2016 WL 100311, at *5 (Ky. Ct. App.
Jan. 8, 2016). Although the Brown Court acknowledged that negligent credentialing had
been a recognized cause of action in Kentucky as a result of Estate of Trover v. Burton,
and that the Supreme Court of Kentucky had vacated that decision on other grounds, it
still determined that the tort did not exist in Kentucky and that it should not be recognized
for policy reasons. Id. at *4-5.
Just two months after Brown, another panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals
consolidated three appellate cases from the Pulaski and Marion County Circuit Courts,3
and in a published opinion “recognize[d] negligent credentialing as a cause of action and
as a means by which individuals can hold hospitals liable for the latter’s negligent
extension of renewal of staff privileges and credentials to independent contractor
physicians.” Spaulding v. Spring View Hosp., Nos. 2013-CA-842, 2013-CA-912; Adams
v. Lake Cumberland Reg’l Hosp., Nos. 2014-CA-600, 2014-CA-707; Jones v. Spring View
Hosp., No. 2013-CA-983, 2016 WL 929507 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2016).
On October 13, 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review
on these consolidated cases, and the appeal is still pending. Spring View Hosp. v.
Spaulding, Nos. 2016-SC-259-D, 2016-SC-277; Lake Cumberland Reg’l Hosp. v. Adams,
No. 2016-SC-181-D; Spring View Hosp. v. Jones, No. 2016-SC-189.
In sum, the Court has three intermediate appellate decisions to help guide its
decision: the published decision in Burton, which found that the tort of negligent
credentialing existed in Kentucky, but was vacated on other grounds; the unpublished
decision in Brown, which declined to recognize the tort of negligent credentialing,4 and
the published decision in Spaulding, which declared that the tort of negligent credentialing
The Hospital is a defendant in one of these cases.
The Hospital also cites to the unpublished decisions in Kulka v. Vora, No. 2009-CA-27, 2011 WL
918408 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2011) and Patterson v. Marshall, Nos. 2008-CA-119, 2008-CA-157, 2009
WL 1341448 (Ky. Ct. App. July 21, 2009) in support of its argument that negligent credentialing is not a tort
in Kentucky. Both of these cases address the tort in dicta, affirming that the Kentucky Supreme Court had
not yet recognized the tort of negligent credentialing. Neither case is persuasive on the matter.
The Hospital also asserts that an additional eight Kentucky Court of Appeals cases disclaim the
existence of negligent credentialing. (Doc. # 142 at 6-7). However, each of the eight cases listed refers to
Brown as “[t]he principal opinion for the group.” See e.g., Wells v. Trover, No. 2012-CA-001885-MR, 2016
WL 99825, at *1 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2016). These eight cases, plus Brown, were originally a class action,
separated upon denial of class certification. Id. at *1 n.3. That a single Court of Appeals panel issued nine
identical decisions on a single day does not add to the weight or persuasiveness of the “principal opinion”
for all, Brown.
existed in Kentucky, and which is currently on appeal.
The Hospital argues that the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision to leave the
question of negligent credentialing “for another day” and the unpublished decision in
Brown prove that negligent credentialing is not a tort in Kentucky. (Docs. # 100-1 at 6
and142 at 4). In contrast, Plaintiff argues that Spaulding, the vacated Burton decision,
and Williams v. St. Claire Med. Ctr, 657 S.W.2d 590 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983)5 control the issue,
and support the argument that negligent credentialing is a recognized tort in Kentucky.
(Doc. # 128 at 10-12).
“[The] Court has a circumspect role when sitting in diversity and should not unduly
speculate about what a state court might conclude, nor should [the Court] impose
whatever rule [it] thinks best.” Combs, 354 F.3d 568 at 597. Weighing the two published
Kentucky Court of Appeals decisions recognizing the tort of negligent credentialing
against the one unpublished Kentucky Court of Appeals decision holding that the tort is
not recognized, the Court predicts that the Kentucky Supreme Court will recognize the
tort of negligent credentialing. As a result, the Hospital’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s negligent credentialing claim, found in
Count Two and, according to the Hospital, in Count Five, of the Complaint.
Plaintiff’s negligence-per-se claims found in Counts Two and Three
must be dismissed.
In Counts Two and Three, Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused as a result
of the Hospital’s violation of several statutes and administrative regulations.
Williams does not answer, or aid in answering, the specific question of whether Kentucky
recognizes the tort of negligent credentialing.
Negligence claims require that the plaintiff prove that the defendant owed plaintiff
a duty, that the defendant breached the duty, and that plaintiff was consequentially
injured. Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons, 113 S.W.3d 85, 88 (Ky. 2003). A negligence-perse claim is “merely a negligence claim with a statutory standard of care substituted for the
common law standard of care.” Young v. Carran, 289 S.W.3d 586, 588-89 (Ky. Ct. App.
2008) (internal citations omitted). Under Kentucky law, a “person injured by the violation
of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he sustained by reason
of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture is imposed for such violation.” Ky. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 466.070. To succeed on such a claim, the plaintiff must show that: (1) the
statute in question is penal in nature, or provides “no inclusive civil remedy,” Hargis v.
Baize, 168 S.W.3d 36, 40 (Ky. 2005); (2) that the plaintiff is “within the class of persons
the statute is intended to protect,” Young, 289 S.W.3d at 589; and (3) that the injury is of
the type that the statute intended to protect. Carman v. Dunaway Timber Co., Inc., 949
S.W.2d 569, 570 (Ky. 1997).
Plaintiff’s negligence-per-se claims under Kentucky Revised
Statutes Chapter 216B are not cognizable.
In Count Two of his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Hospital owed him a
“statutory duty under KRS Chapter 216B, including KRS 216B.155,” which “include the
obligation not only to establish, but also to implement and enforce [quality assurance,
improvement, and credentialing] standards.” (Doc. # 1-3 at 18-19). Plaintiff argues that
a “violation of this statutory duty is actionable under KRS 446.070.” Id. at 19. Chapter
216B of the Kentucky Revised Statutes is titled “Licensing and Regulation of Health
Facilities and Services.” The General Assembly passed Chapter 216B for the purpose of
authorizing “the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to perform any certificate-of-need
function and other statutory functions necessary to improve the quality and increase
access to health-care facilities, services, and providers, and to create a cost-efficient
health-care delivery system for the citizens of the Commonwealth.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has not spoken definitively on whether a plaintiff has
a cognizable negligence-per-se claim based on alleged violations of Chapter 216B, and
so the Court must once again look to the Kentucky Court of Appeals for guidance. The
Kentucky Court of Appeals has recently considered the issue, deciding that alleged
violations of Chapter 216B are not actionable as negligence-per-se claims. Puckett v.
Salyersville Healthcare Ctr., No. 2013-CA-1263, 2015 WL 3643437 (Ky. Ct. App. June
12, 2015). In its analysis, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiff had satisfied the
first two prongs of the standard—Chapter 216B provided no inclusive remedy, and plaintiff
was within the class of people the statute was meant to protect. Id. at *4. However, the
plaintiff failed to show that the injury suffered was the type of harm that Chapter 216B
was designed to prevent. Instead, the Court of Appeals determined that Chapter 216B
was designed “to prevent economic harm or the preclusion of access to health-care
services by limiting the types and amount of costs which may be passed on by providers
to patients.” Id. In contrast, the harm alleged by the plaintiff was “related to physical
injuries … not economic ones.” Id.
The Court finds the Kentucky Court of Appeal’s analysis in Puckett persuasive;6
Other courts in this district have resolved the issue using the same analysis. See Vanhook v.
Somerset Health Facilities, LP, 67 F. Supp. 3d 810, 824 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 15, 2014) (“The type of harm the
statute aims to prevent, then, is economic in nature. [Plaintiff] has not alleged any injury regarding her
access to health care or economic harm. Rather, [Plaintiff] suffered a physical harm…Thus, [she] cannot
state a claim of negligence per se for violation of [Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.] Chapter 216B, and this claim must
the claims of physical harm in this case do not support Plaintiff’s negligence-per-se claims
under Chapter 216B, statutes enacted to combat economic injury. 7 Therefore, Plaintiff’s
negligence-per-se claims predicated upon alleged violations of Chapter 216B, as found
in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint, are dismissed, and the Hospital’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings with regard to these claims is granted.
Plaintiff’s negligence-per-se claims under 902 Kentucky
Administrative Regulations 20:016 and 20:260 are not
Plaintiff’s Complaint also asserts negligence-per-se claims based on alleged
violations of two Kentucky Administrative Regulations. Specifically, in Count Two, Plaintiff
alleges that the Hospital owed him a duty to comply with 902 Ky. Admin. Reg. 20:016,
which requires hospitals to develop and adopt policies and bylaws that “establish a
procedure for granting and withdrawing staff privileges, performing credential reviews,
and providing a mechanism for appeal of decision regarding staff membership and
(Doc. # 1-3, at 19).
According to Plaintiff, this duty extends beyond
establishing, and onto implementing and enforcing the standards, and violation of the
regulation is “actionable under KRS 446.070.” Id. This administrative regulation, titled
“Hospitals; operations and services,” serves to “establish[ ] the minimum licensure
requirements for the operation of hospitals and the basic services to be provided by
hospitals.” 902 Ky. Admin. Reg. 20:016.
The Court recognizes that licensure requirements for healthcare facilities and service providers
relate to public safety and that the overarching goal of hospital licensing is the safety of those in the care
of healthcare facilities and providers. However, hospitals do not license professionals, and the statute
under which these negligence-per-se claims have been interpreted by Kentucky courts to protect against
In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the Hospital had a duty “to comply with 902
KAR 20:260 § 4, and to appoint a physician medical director in connection with the
application for and grant of special health clinic status to [the Commonwealth Bariatric
Center].” (Doc. # 1-3, at ¶ 93). This administrative regulation was promulgated to
“provide[ ] minimum licensure requirements for the operation of special health clinics.”
902 Ky. Admin. Reg. 20:260.
Negligence-per-se claims predicated upon alleged violations of administrative
regulations are permitted in the “specific context of public safety.” Centre College v.
Trzop, 127 S.W.3d 562, 567 (Ky. 2003). Thus, a cause of action under Ky. Rev. Stat.
Ann. § 446.070 for violation of an administrative regulation exists only if the regulation:
(1) is consistent with the enabling legislation, and (2) applies to the safety of the citizenry.
St. Luke Hospital, Inc. v. Straub, 354 S.W.3d 529, 535 (Ky. 2011) (citing Centre College,
127 S.W.3d at 567).
Neither the Kentucky Supreme Court nor the Kentucky Court of Appeals has
spoken to whether a negligence-per-se claim is cognizable under either of these
administrative regulations. The Court must therefore make “the best prediction … of what
the Kentucky Supreme Court would do if confronted with [the] question.” Combs, 354
F.3d at 578.
A recent Kentucky Supreme Court case provides guidance. In McCarty v. Covol
Fuels No. 2, LLC, 476 S.W.3d 224 (Ky. 2015), the plaintiff brought negligence-per-se
claims based on the alleged violation of Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapters 351 and
352, and on administrative regulations promulgated though enabling legislation in
Chapters 351 and 352. After determining that the negligence-per-se claim predicated on
these statutes was not cognizable for the plaintiff, the Kentucky Supreme Court turned to
the administrative regulations. Id. at 233. Relying on Straub, the Kentucky Supreme
Court determined that, because plaintiff had no viable negligence-per-se claim under
Chapters 351 or 352, “[a]ny administrative regulation [enabled by Chapters 351 or 352]
purporting to reach that hazard would fail as exceeding the scope of its enabling statute.”
Id. at 234. In short, the Kentucky Supreme Court found that it made “little sense for the
legislature to enact statutory provisions” with limitations as to the class of persons
covered, and then “have those same statutes serve as enabling legislations for
administrative regulations … far removed… [from the purpose of the enabling statutes].”
Id. at 233.
The enabling statutes creating the regulations in 902 Ky. Admin. Reg. 20:260 and
20:016 are found in Chapter 216B.8 This Court has already determined that Plaintiff’s
negligence-per-se claims under Chapter 216B are not viable as they are pled. Following
McCarty, this Court also finds that these administrative regulations, enabled by Chapter
216B, cannot provide the predicate legislation for a negligence-per-se claim without
exceeding the scope of their enabling statute. Because the regulations Plaintiff relies
upon fail on the first prong of the Straub rule, the Court’s analysis stops there. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s negligence-per-se claims predicated upon alleged violations of 902 Ky. Admin.
Reg. 20:260 and 20:016, as found in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint, are
dismissed, and the Hospital’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with regard to these
Each of the two administrative regulations cited by Plaintiff in these counts is promulgated under
three statutes. For each, two of the three are found in Chapter 216B, and the third for each is unrelated to
portions of the regulations cited by Plaintiff. The two non-Chapter 216B statutes are § 13A.100, which
requires administrative bodies with the power to promulgate administrative regulations prescribe certain
statements, processes, and procedures, and § 216.2970(1), which requires that hospitals offering obstetric
or similar services provide for infant auditory screening.
claims is granted.
The Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
Plaintiff’s claims of negligent supervision and negligent training seek to hold the
hospital “directly liable to the victim and not vicariously liable for [Doctor Husted’s]
conduct.” Big Spring Assembly of God, Inc. v. Stevenson, Nos. 2012-CA-001350, 2012CA-1423, 2014 WL 4267433, at *2 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2014). Kentucky “recognize[s]
and acknowledge[s] the existence of claims of negligent training and supervision,” Turner
v. Pendennis Club, 19 S.W.3d 117, 121 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000), as “separate torts from
general negligence.” Rankin v. Jefferson Special Police, Inc., No. 2011-CA-1209, 2013
WL 5312504, at *3 (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2013) (citing Smith v. Isaacs, 777 S.W.2d 912,
914 (Ky. 1989)). “In recognizing the tort of negligent supervision, Kentucky has adopted
the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213,” Booker v. GTE.net LLC, 350 F.3d 515, 517
(6th Cir. 2003), which addresses personal liability for “conducting an activity through
servant or other agents.” See Smith, 777 S.W.2d at 914.
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Hospital argues that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s negligent-supervision and negligent-training
claims because Doctor Husted was an independent contractor, not an employee, and so
the Hospital cannot be liable for negligently training and supervising Doctor Husted. (Doc.
# 112-1 at 1-2). Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that Doctor Husted was an “independent
contractor,” rather than an employee. (Doc. # 126).
Nevertheless, the Hospital’s argument fails. Kentucky law does not limit liability
for this tort to employer-employee relationships, but also allows liability to extend to
principal-agent and servant relationships. See Smith, 777 S.W.2d at 914 (finding liability
exists for “conducting an activity through servants or other agents.”)9 (Emphasis added).
Plaintiff has alleged that Doctor Husted was an agent of the Hospital. (Doc. # 1-3, at ¶
And this allegation can support Plaintiff’s negligent-training and negligent-
supervision claims. Therefore, the Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count
Five with respect to Plaintiff’s negligent-supervision and negligent-training claims is
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein,
IT IS ORDERED:
The Hospital’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff’s negligent
credentialing claims (Doc. # 100) is DENIED;
The Hospital’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff’s
negligence-per-se claims found in Counts Two and Three of the Complaint (Doc. # 100)
Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Supplement (Doc. # 138) is GRANTED; and
The Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Five of the
Complaint (Doc. # 112) is DENIED.
In fact, one case the Hospital cites in support of its argument recognizes that an employeremployee relationship is not the only relationship that can give rise to liability for negligent supervision or
training. See Southard v. Belanger, 966 F. Supp. 2d 727, 744 (W.D. Ky. 2013) (“Mr. Belanger was not
Martens Transport’s employee, or its servant or agent.”).
The 31st day of October, 2017.
K:\DATA\Opinions\London\15-138 Carr v. LCRH MOO re MJOP MSJ Counts 2 3 5.docx
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?