Legal Aspects Of Health Care Administration 11th Edition by George Pozgar

Exercise 12

Facts
In April 26, 1988, the patient was admitted to the hospital suffering from a severe headache. Her physician ordered a CT scan for the following morning and prescribed Demerol and Dramamine to alleviate pain.
Referring to the patient's medical chart, the nurse stated in her deposition that the patient received injections of Demerol and Dramamine at 6:45 PM and 10:00 PM on April 26. The nurse checked on the patient at 11:00 PM. The patient's temperature and blood pressure were taken at midnight. Her blood pressure was recorded at 90/60, down from 160/80 at 8:00 PM. At 12:25 AM, 2 hours and 25 minutes after her last medication, the nurse administered another injection of Demerol and Dramamine because the patient was still complaining of pain. Although hospital rules require consultation with a patient's admitting physician when there is a question regarding the administration of medication, the nurse stated that she did not call the physician before administering another injection.
At 4:00 AM, when the nurse made an hourly check of the patient, she discovered that the patient was not breathing. She called a Code 99 (an emergency signal for a patient in acute distress). An emergency department physician responded and revived the patient. The patient was diagnosed as having suffered "respiratory arrest, with what appears to be hypoxic brain injury." CT scans revealed no bleeding, but other tests revealed a grossly abnormal electroencephalogram (EEG). The patient was transferred to a nursing facility where she remained in a coma at the time of trial.
The patient's daughter and husband filed a complaint against the hospital, alleging that the hospital had been negligent in monitoring and medicating the patient, in failing to notify a physician when her vital signs became irregular, in failing to properly assess her condition and intervene, and in failing to exercise reasonable care. Later, the complaint was amended to include the nurse.
The defendant nurse filed a motion for summary judgment. She asserted that, as a matter of law, she was shielded from liability under the qualified immunity afforded public officials. The circuit court denied the motion, and the nurse appealed.
Issue
Is a nurse employed by a county hospital shielded by public official qualified immunity from a medical negligence action brought against her individually?
Holding
The Mississippi Supreme Court held that an employee of a county hospital enjoys no qualified immunity.
Reason
There is no qualified immunity for any public hospital employees making treatment decisions. Discretion exercised by medical personnel in making treatment decisions is not the sort of individual judgment sought to be protected by the qualified immunity bestowed upon public officials.
Do you agree that the nurse should not be shielded from liability based on the fact that she is a public official? Explain.