Raven Pearson

Kyle Triplett
Fadhil Qassab
Alejandro Franchini
Group 7
HCM 388

Johnson v Misericordia Community Hospital

99 Wis. 2d 708, 301 N.W 2d 156 (1981)
Coffey, J.
I. Procedure
A. Who are the parties?
Plaintiff: Johnson
Defendant: Misericordia Community Hospital, Dr. Salinsky settled out of court
B. Who brought the action?
Plaintiff Johnson
C. In what court did the case originate?
Local trial court in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
D. Who won at the trial-court level?
Johnson won at trial court
E. What is the appellate history of the case?
The appellate court affirmed trial court, then the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
II. Facts
A.What are the relevant facts as recited by this court?
Plaintiff has permanent paralytic condition of his right thigh muscles with resultant
atrophy and weakness and loss of function.
On March 5, 1973, Dr. Salinsky applied for orthopedic privileges on the medical staff.
In application, Salinsky stated that he was on the active medical staff of other hospitals
and his privileges had never been suspended, diminished, revoked or not renewed.
In part of application, Salinsky failed to answer any of the questions pertaining to his
malpractice insurance.

In the application provided that significant misstatements or omissions would be a cause for denial of
appointment.
Salinsky authorized Misericordia to contact his malpractice carriers, past and present, and
all the hospitals that he had previously been associated with, for purpose of obtaining and
information bearing on his professional competence.
Application also contained language releasing the hospital for any liability as a result of
doing a background check on applicant.
Mrs. Jane Bekos, medical staff coordinator at Misericordia (appointed April 1973), noted Hospital administrator
David recommended Salinskys appointment to medical staff.
A.
Scott, Sr. on June 22, 1973.
Salinskys appointment and privileges were not marked approved until August 8, 1973.
Salinsky himself endorsed the approval of Salinskys appointment. Record establishes
that Salinsky was elevated to position of Chief of Staff shortly after joining the medical
staff.
Mrs. Bekos testified that she failed to contact any of the references in Salinskys case
Bekos attempted to justify her failure to investigate because she believed Salinsky had
been a member of the medical staff prior to her employment in April, even though his application wasnt
marked approved until August.
Representatives of two Milwaukee hospitals gave testimony concerning the accepted
procedure for evaluating applicants for medical staff privileges.
They stated that the hospitals governing body has the ultimate responsibility in granting
or denying staff privileges.
The credentials committee conducts an investigation of the applying physicians or
surgeons education, training, health, ethics and experience through contacts with his
peers in the specialty in which he is seeking privilege as well as the references listed in
his application to determine the veracity of his statements and to solicit comments dealing with the
applicants credentials.
Record demonstrates that had such investigation been conducted, Misericordia would
have found that Dr. Salinsky had in fact experienced denial and restriction of his
privileges, as well as never having been granted privileges at the very same hospitals he
listed in his application
At one hospital, Salinskys request for expanded orthopedic privileges was denied after

Another hospital temporarily suspended his privileges after a report of continued

flagrant bad practices.
Jury found Misericordia 80% negligent in granting orthopedic surgical privileges to Dr. Salinsky.
Damages were awarded in the sum of $315,000 for past and future personal injuries and $90,000 for past and
future impairment of earning capacity.
B. Are there any facts you would like to know but that are not revealed in the
opinion?
Why didnt Mrs. Bekos contact any of Salinskys references?
Are there other physicians that receive/d inappropriate privileges?
III. Issues
A. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?
Duty of due care in the selection and granting of privileges
Negligence in the hiring procedure
B. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issue
Yes, since it helped establish the issue of whether or not the hospital had a duty to its
patients to carefully select its medical staff and how the hospital breached its standard of
care.
IV. Holding
A. What is the courts precise holding?
Misericordia was 80% responsible of the casual negligence. Damages were awarded in the sum of $315,000 for
past and future personal injuries, and $90,000 for past and future impairment of earning capacity.
B. What is its rationale for that decision?
Hospitals that are practicing due care would not have accepted Salinskys application.
C. Do you agree with that rationale?
Yes, due to vicarious liability, the hospital is not directly liable for injury but is due to hiring of Salinsky.
V. Implications
A. What does the case mean for healthcare today?

This case demonstrates the importance of hospitals practicing due care.

B. What were its implications when the decision was announced?
Hospitals took careful consideration of applicants.
Check current staff members.
C. How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications?
Proper documentation of applications and references and enforcing those procedures.
D. What would be different today if the case had been decided differently?
There would be less incentive for hospitals to do thorough background checks and
checking references and qualifications for the doctors under contract with them, which
would lead to more unqualified hires and diminish hospital efficiency.
Independent contractors with hospitals would be 100% liable for their injuries instead of
having some fault resting with the hospital.