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

Exercise 16

Facts
The plaintiff, Kearney, suffered a life-threatening injury and was taken by ambulance to the emergency department of Kodiak Island Hospital (KIH). Kearney was examined by the on-call emergency department physician, a family practitioner. It was determined that a surgical consultation was necessary and Deal, a surgeon with staff privileges at the hospital, was called. After ordering certain tests, Deal was of the opinion that Kearney could not survive a transfer to Anchorage. Deal then performed emergency surgery that lasted over 9 hours, ending the following morning.
The plaintiff was eventually transferred to Anchorage. His condition worsened, and he suffered loss of circulation and tissue death in both legs. The plaintiff alleged that KIH was negligent in failing to properly evacuate him to Anchorage. Kearney reached a settlement totaling $510,000. He also brought an action against Deal for negligent acts. Deal moved for summary judgment, claiming to be immune from suit under the Good Samaritan statute.
The trial court denied Deal's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Good Samaritan statute was not applicable to Deal because he was acting under a preexisting duty to render emergency care to Kearney. Deal petitioned for review, and his petition was granted.
The superior court held that the immunity provided by the Good Samaritan statute is unavailable to physicians with a preexisting duty to respond to emergency situations. The court concluded that Deal was under a preexisting duty in the instant case by virtue of his contract with KIH, the duty being part of the consideration that Deal gave to KIH in exchange for staff privileges at the hospital. The court further found that the Good Samaritan statute did not apply to Deal in any event, because the actions allegedly constituting malpractice occurred during the follow-up care and treatment given to Kearney after surgery. By then, the court reasoned, Deal had become Kearney's treating physician and was no longer responding to an emergency situation. Deal appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Issue
Does the Good Samaritan statute extend immunity to physicians who have a preexisting duty to render emergency care?
Holding
The Alaska Supreme Court held that the Good Samaritan statute does not extend immunity to physicians who have preexisting duty to render emergency care.
Reason
Alaska Statute 09.65.090(a) states:
A person at a hospital or any other location who renders emergency care or emergency counseling to an injured, ill, or emotionally distraught person who reasonably appears to be in immediate need of emergency aid in order to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid.
The legislature clearly intended this provision to encourage healthcare providers, including medical professionals, to administer emergency medical care, whether in a hospital or not, to persons who are not their patients, by immunizing them from civil liability. The clear inference of this recommendation is that the statute would not cover those with a preexisting duty to care.
Discuss the legal implications if the court had ruled that the Alaska statute could be interpreted as extending immunity to physicians who have a preexisting duty to render emergency care.