Galligan v. St. Vincent's Hospital of City of New York
| Decision Date | 15 May 1967 |
| Citation | 279 N.Y.S.2d 886,28 A.D.2d 592 |
| Parties | Kathleen A. GALLIGAN, Respondent, v. ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Davis & Davis, New York City, for appellant.
James Dempsey, White Plains, for respondent.
Before GIBSON, P.J., and REYNOLDS, AULISI, STALEY, and HERLIHY, JJ.
Appeal from a partial judgment of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, entered upon a verdict, which dismissed the affirmative defense of Workmen's Compensation set forth in defendant's answer.
The plaintiff, a student nurse, sustained injuries at the defendant's hospital on May 26, 1960. On that day, she was assigned to the defendant's out-patient-department and, in the course of her duties, under the direction of a hospital nurse, she was putting a cardboard box containing vials of acid back in place in a closet, when the box broke causing the vials to fall to the floor and break, with the result that the acids splashed upon her legs, causing severe burns.
This action was brought to recover damages for those injuries, and the defendant's answer pleaded the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law (§§ 11 & 29(6)) as a complete defense to this action. A separate trial was held of the issues raised by the affirmative defense, resulting in a 10--2 jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The trial of the issues of negligence and damages awaits the determination of this appeal.
On October 18, 1956, the plaintiff applied for admission to the St. Vincent's Hospital School of Nursing for the term commencing September 1957. The School of Nursing was founded in 1892 by the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent DePaul, who also have operated St. Vincent's Hospital since 1849. Plaintiff's tuition for the third year course was $50, with an additional charge of $60 for books, health service, and other fees. In addition, the plaintiff was required to purchase her own uniforms and shoes, and to reside at the school. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was in her third year of study. As a part of the third year curriculum, the school assigned the student nurses to various clinics in the hospital for clinical instruction. The assignments to each clinic or department were made by the school. The head nurse in charge of the clinic had no control over the number of students assigned and had no choice as to which student would be assigned.
The students, over a period of six weeks spent 210 hours in the clinics at the hospital and 30 hours in the classroom. Upon being assigned to a clinic, the students, under the supervision of a graduate nurse, prepared the clinic which included bringing out equipment, setting up equipment and getting the rooms ready. They would assist the doctors, perform what procedures they were capable of doing, and instruct the patients. In addition, they made beds, bathed the patients, took care of bed pans and assisted the graduate nurse in cleaning up the unit, putting away the equipment, and preparing the unit for the next clinic. Their duties were, in some respects, similar to the duties of nurse's aids who were employees of the hospital.
The school reserved the right of retaining only those students who, in the judgment of the faculty, met the requirements of health, education and personality, and the necessary skills for a good nurse.
The witnesses for the defendant testified that assignments given the students were planned between a faculty member and the head nurse of the department or clinic; that the students received instructions from the head nurse; that the work of students in the various departments under supervision of graduate nurses was part of their training in becoming a registered nurse.
The plaintiff's testimony confirms that student nurses were expected to and did, in fact, take orders from regular nurses when assigned to the hospital, even though these nurses did no teaching in the nursing school. There is no testimony which indicates that on the day of the accident plaintiff was under the control or direction of anyone but a regular hospital nurse.
The witnesses from the defendant's accounting department testified that the defendant carried a Workmen's Compensation policy of insurance; that the plaintiff was included in its coverage; that the estimated cost of room, board and laundry for each student was approximately $1200; that, if it were not for the student nurses, it would be necessary for the hospital to hire about 100 additional employees at an annual cost of $342,900, and that the hospital contributed the sum of $1160 to the school per student in 1959.
Upon conclusion of the testimony, the court charged the jury, without exception, that it had but one question to decide and 'that is the question of whether or not at the time Miss Galligan received her injuries she was acting as an employee or as a student.'
The defendant contends that, as a matter of law, it is entitled to a judgment dismissing the complaint based on its affirmative defense, or in the alternative, that the jury verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence; and that a reference by plaintiff's counsel to liability insurance required the granting of its motion for a mistrial. In support of its contention, the defendant cites several cases wherein awards under the Workmen's Compensation Law to student nurses were affirmed by the court.
These cases hold that the relationship of employer and employee existed between a student nurse and the hospital during the course of training (Matter of Commissioner of Taxation and Finance v. Willard Parker Hospital (Genesee Hospital), 256 App.Div. 1018, 10 N.Y.S.2d 487), and that where a student nurse is employed by a hospital her remuneration consisted of room, maintenance, education and training. (Matter of Nelson v. St. Francis Hospital, 249 App.Div. 910, 292 N.Y.S. 552.)
In order to determine that the plaintiff's sole remedy is under the Workmen's Compensation Law, it must appear that the arrangement between the parties was such as to create the relationship of employer and employee, and that the injuries sustained arose out of and in the course of her employment. (Fellows v. Seymour, 259 App.Div. 966, 19 N.Y.S.2d 960.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weldon v. Dunn
...452 P.2d 781.3 Wright v. Wilson Memorial Hospital, Inc., 30 N.C.App. 91, 226 S.E.2d 225, 226 (1976); Galligan v. St. Vincent's Hospital of N.Y., 28 A.D.2d 592, 279 N.Y.S.2d 886, 889 (1967); Heget v. Christ Hospital, 26 N.J.Misc. 189, 58 A.2d 615, 616 (1948).4 Brewer v. Bama Pie, Inc., 1964 ......
-
Beall v. Altus Public School Dist.
...footnote 5.7 Wright v. Wilson Memorial Hospital, Inc., 30 N.C.App. 91, 226 S.E.2d 225, 226 (1976); Galligan v. St. Vincent's Hospital of N.Y., 28 A.D.2d 592, 279 N.Y.S.2d 886, 889 (1967); Heget v. Christ Hospital, 26 N.J.Misc. 189, 58 A.2d 615, 616 (1948).8 Wright v. Wilson Memorial Hospita......
-
Ryles v. Durham County Hosp. Corp., Inc.
...Act. Id. at 93, 226 S.E.2d at 226-27. In forming its conclusion, the Court in Wright relied in part on Galligan v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 28 A.D.2d 592, 279 N.Y.S.2d 886 (1967). In Galligan, a lower New York court determined that a student nurse injured while on the job at defendant hospital ......
-
Olsson v. Nyack Hosp.
...selected the interns, retained the power to dismiss them, and controlled and supervised their work (see, Galligan v. St. Vincent's Hosp. of City of N.Y., 28 A.D.2d 592, 279 N.Y.S.2d 886). Though financial remuneration was not paid to plaintiff, it has been held that where, as here, necessar......