Edwards v. Brandywine Hospital

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that if a hospital promulgates a substandard rule that its employees follow, the hospital may be corporately liable even though the employees who followed that protocol may not be at fault
• explaining that Edwards failed to introduce evidence “that a reasonable hospital would have intercepted and corrected” the medical provider’s errors
• explaining that Edwards failed to introduce evidence “that a reasonable hospital would have intercepted and corrected” the medical provider’s errors
• stating that a hospital is not liable under corporate negligence just because one of its employees makes a mistake that constitutes malpractice but that the tort contemplates a kind of systematic negligence
• explaining that the “enumerated duties - 12 - J-A09030-23 [in Thompson] . . . appear broad and somewhat nebulas” but a court must “discern their outlines”
• to make out a viable Thompson claim, a plaintiff must prove that hospital knew or should have known of the mistake or deficiency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).