Lexplug logoLexplug

Hirpa v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.

Utah Supreme Court
948 P.2d 785 (1997)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Utah's Good Samaritan Act immunizes a physician from liability for ordinary negligence when rendering emergency care in a hospital, provided the physician has no pre-existing legal duty to the patient. This application of the statute does not violate the 'open courts' or 'wrongful death' provisions of the Utah Constitution.


Facts:

  • Yeshi Wordoffa was admitted to Logan Regional Hospital in active labor under the care of her personal obstetrician, Dr. Neal Mortenson.
  • During labor, Wordoffa became unresponsive, experienced spasms, and was found to have no heartbeat or respiration.
  • Dr. Mortenson delivered the baby and then called a hospital-wide 'Code Blue' emergency alert.
  • Dr. Merrill C. Daines, the hospital's medical director and a specialist in emergency medicine, was not Wordoffa's physician but heard the Code Blue and responded.
  • Upon arriving, Dr. Daines was asked to take over Wordoffa's care, which he did, directing the resuscitation efforts.
  • Despite the efforts of the response team led by Dr. Daines, Wordoffa was declared dead seventeen minutes after the team's arrival.

Procedural Posture:

  • Haile Hirpa, the surviving spouse of Yeshi Wordoffa, filed a negligence lawsuit against Dr. Daines and IHC Hospitals in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
  • Dr. Daines moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under Utah's Good Samaritan Act.
  • The district court initially denied the motion, finding a question of fact regarding whether Dr. Daines had a pre-existing duty to treat Wordoffa.
  • After further discovery, Dr. Daines renewed his motion for summary judgment, and IHC joined.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Daines and IHC, ruling as a matter of law that Dr. Daines had no pre-existing duty and was therefore immune.
  • Hirpa, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
  • Finding no controlling Utah precedent, the Tenth Circuit certified two questions of state law to the Supreme Court of Utah for resolution.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Utah's Good Samaritan Act immunize a physician who responds to an in-hospital emergency from liability for negligence when that physician has no pre-existing duty to render aid to the patient?


Opinions:

Majority - Howe, Justice

Yes, the Utah Good Samaritan Act immunizes a physician who responds to an in-hospital emergency when that physician has no pre-existing duty to render aid. The statute's protection is not limited by location and applies within a hospital setting to encourage voluntary emergency assistance. The central inquiry is not where the emergency occurs, but whether the physician had a pre-existing duty to respond, which would negate their status as a volunteer. A pre-existing duty can arise from various sources, such as being on-call, contractual obligations, hospital rules, or an existing doctor-patient relationship. Because the purpose of the Act is to encourage aid from those who are not otherwise obligated, it logically does not apply to those who are already compelled by a legal duty to act. Furthermore, this interpretation is constitutional because it serves the legitimate public policy of encouraging emergency medical assistance, which the court deemed a reasonable legislative choice that does not arbitrarily abrogate the right to sue for wrongful death or violate the open courts provision.



Analysis:

This decision establishes the 'pre-existing duty' test as the determinative factor for applying Good Samaritan immunity in Utah, resolving uncertainty about whether the statute applies within hospitals. It clarifies that the location of the emergency is secondary to the legal obligations of the responding physician. By defining potential sources of a pre-existing duty—such as being on-call, hospital rules, or a prior doctor-patient relationship—the court provided a clear analytical framework for future cases. The ruling strengthens the policy of encouraging medical professionals to volunteer in emergencies by assuring them of legal protection, even within their own workplaces, so long as they are acting outside their specific, pre-existing duties.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hirpa v. IHC Hospitals, Inc. (1997)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"