Klein v. Sanford USD Med. Ctr., 27320.

Decision Date09 December 2015
Docket NumberNo. 27320.,27320.
Citation872 N.W.2d 802
Parties Nicholas Shawn KLEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANFORD USD MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Appellee.
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Peter J. Bendorf, Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Andrew Birkeland of Hovland & Rasmus, PLLC, Edina, Minnesota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellant.

Melissa C. Hinton, Reece M. Almond of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellee.

ZINTER, Justice.

[¶ 1.] Nicholas Klein sued Sanford USD Medical Center for damages allegedly caused by his claimed premature discharge from the hospital. The circuit court granted Sanford summary judgment. The court concluded that Sanford was entitled to good faith immunity under SDCL 34–12C–7 because Klein demanded to be discharged against medical advice. Klein appeals, asserting that SDCL 34–12C–7 does not apply, and that if it does apply, there was a genuine dispute of material fact whether Sanford acted in good faith. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶ 2.] On January 16, 2011, at approximately 1:00 a.m., thirty-eight-year-old Nicholas Klein drove to the Sanford USD Medical Center emergency department after being struck in the throat and head during an altercation at a bar. The nurse's notes recorded Klein "has a normal mood and effect.... His mood appears not anxious. He does not exhibit a depressed mood. He expresses no homicidal and no suicidal ideation

." At approximately 2:00 a.m., Klein complained of increasing pain in his neck and throat. Sanford performed a CT scan and recommended that Klein be intubated to protect his airway. Klein was intubated and admitted to the intensive care unit. The nurse's notes indicated that Klein "tolerated the procedure well. There were no complications."

[¶ 3.] While intubated, Sanford staff administered sedation medication—Propofol

, Versed, and Fentanyl. The record is not clear, but it suggests that Klein began to receive sedation medication at 2:30 a.m. To assess the condition of his airway and determine whether Klein should remain intubated, Dr. Ashraf Elshami obtained consent from Klein to perform a bronchoscopy. The bronchoscopy revealed no compromise to Klein's airway. At approximately 11:00 a.m., after Klein had been intubated for approximately eight hours, Sanford staff extubated Klein and discontinued administration of sedation medication.

[¶ 4.] At 11:55 a.m., Klein asked Sanford Nurse Kelli Kolander when he would be allowed to leave the hospital. She informed Klein that a physician would have to discharge him sometime during the week. Klein became agitated and started to pull at his heart rate monitor, IV, and tubing. Klein insisted on leaving the hospital. Kolander informed Klein that he would be leaving against medical advice. She asked that Klein allow her to consult with his physicians, and Klein agreed. Kolander contacted Dr. Curtis Peery (the on-call trauma surgeon) and Dr. Elshami. Dr. Peery did not object to Klein leaving against medical advice. Dr. Elshami informed Kolander that he wanted Klein to drink fluids before leaving. Klein refused. Kolander related Klein's refusal to Dr. Elshami, and Dr. Elshami informed Kolander that Klein could not be forced to drink fluids. Dr. Elshami approved Klein leaving against medical advice. Kolander also contacted Klein's regular physician, Dr. Schaefer, and spoke with Dr. Schaefer's resident. Dr. Schaefer's resident approved Klein leaving against medical advice. According to the nurse's notes, Klein informed Kolander that he had an appointment scheduled with Dr. Schaefer for the next week.

[¶ 5.] After consulting with Klein's physicians, Kolander obtained Klein's signature on a release form reflecting his desire to leave against medical advice. Kolander also obtained Klein's signature on additional paperwork related to his discharge. Klein refused to take any discharge paperwork with him. He also refused any assistance with his dressings

after the IV was removed. Kolander offered to contact Klein's family. Klein refused, although he gave Kolander permission to inform his family that he had left if his family were to contact the hospital. Klein told Kolander that he would drive himself home. She informed Klein that his judgment and ability to drive could be impaired because he had received sedation medication within the last four hours. The nurse's notes indicated that Klein said he did not care and would drive anyway. The nurse's notes further indicated that Klein "was agitated through this time."

[¶ 6.] After leaving Sanford at 12:30 p.m., Klein drove to his mother's home, retrieved a bottle of alcohol, and drove to his home in Hills, Minnesota. At some point between 12:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., Klein drank the alcohol and overdosed on his HIV medication (Ritonavir

and Darunavir ) and acetaminophen. Klein then walked out of his house and brutally assaulted his neighbors. Klein later explained that he had no clear memory of his actions after leaving Sanford. Klein had a history of depression, anxiety, and prior suicide attempts.

[¶ 7.] Klein pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to the assault. As part of his criminal prosecution, a Minnesota court ordered a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Michael Harlow examined Klein and issued a mental health hold. Dr. Harlow opined that at the time of the assault, Klein was "mentally ill secondary to delirium

from medication administration." He concluded that Klein "was laboring under such a defect of reason at the time of the offenses that he did not know the nature of the acts or that they were wrong." The Minnesota court found Klein "not guilty by reason of mental illness[.]"

[¶ 8.] In January 2013, Klein brought this suit against Sanford. He alleged that at the time of his discharge, he was suffering from a state of substance-induced delirium

and Sanford should have been aware of his changed mental condition. Klein claimed that Sanford negligently failed to assess his mental condition after he insisted on leaving against medical advice, making him a danger to himself and others. Klein alleged that, as a result of Sanford's discharge, he suffered economic and noneconomic damages.

[¶ 9.] Sanford moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under SDCL 34–12C–7. That statute provides good faith immunity to health care providers who follow a patient's direction for his or her own health care. Sanford claimed that its health care providers acted in good faith when they followed Klein's demand to leave against medical advice. Klein responded that SDCL 34–12C–7 did not apply to his decision to refuse health care and that he did not have the capacity to make the decision. In deciding the immunity question, the circuit court asked Klein, "[W]hat factors have you shown me of bad faith?" Klein argued that he was not required to show bad faith to defeat a medical provider's claim of good faith immunity under SDCL 34–12C–7. Klein further argued that Sanford did not act in good faith because Sanford should have known Klein was a danger to himself and others based on his mental health history, the medications administered, and the change in his behavior post-extubation.

[¶ 10.] The circuit court granted Sanford summary judgment. The court reasoned that SDCL 34–12C–7 applied and that although there were facts alleging negligence, there were "no facts ... alleging bad faith." Klein appeals, arguing SDCL 34–12C–7 does not apply. If the statute does apply, Klein argues that he presented sufficient evidence to create a disputed issue of material fact whether Sanford acted in good faith.

Decision

[¶ 11.] Summary judgment is proper when "the moving party demonstrate[s] the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and show[s] entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law." Brandt v. Cty. of Pennington, 2013 S.D. 22, ¶ 7, 827 N.W.2d 871, 874 (quoting Jacobson v. Leisinger, 2008 S.D. 19, ¶ 24, 746 N.W.2d 739, 745 ). The evidence is viewed "most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists." Id. "The circuit court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo." Tolle v. Lev, 2011 S.D. 65, ¶ 11, 804 N.W.2d 440, 444 (quoting Johnson v. Sellers, 2011 S.D. 24, ¶ 11, 798 N.W.2d 690, 694 ).

[¶ 12.] Klein first contends that SDCL 34–12C–7 applies only to a person's decision to receive medical treatment, not when a person refuses medical treatment. SDCL 34–12C–7 grants good faith immunity for a health care provider's determination that a person is able to give consent and for following a patient's directions regarding health care.

A health care provider who in good faith believes that a person is capable of giving informed consent for his own health care is not subject to ... civil liability ... for following that person's direction or for making such determination.

Id. (emphasis added). "Health care" is defined as "any care, treatment, service, or procedure to maintain, diagnose, or treat a person's physical or mental condition. The term also includes admission to ... a licensed health care facility[.]" SDCL 34–12C–1(3). But the statute does not specifically mention the refusal to accept health care. Klein argues that the statute does not apply to a "refusal" to accept health care because the definitional words "care, treatment, service, procedure, maintain, diagnose, and treat" all relate to the actual receipt of various types of health care.

[¶ 13.] We do not read words or phrases in isolation; rather, "the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Expungement of Oliver, 2012 S.D. 9, ¶ 9, 810 N.W.2d 350, 352 (quoting Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 1301, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) ). Furthermore, we do not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Buffalo Chip
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • November 10, 2020
    ...rules of statutory construction that we avoid absurd or illogical results. See Klein v. Sanford USD Med. Ctr. , 2015 S.D. 95, ¶ 13, 872 N.W.2d 802, 807. As the circuit court noted, under Buffalo Chip's interpretation, a city within our state could be comprised only of residents who reside e......
  • Domson, Inc. v. Kadrmas Lee & Jackson, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • September 19, 2018
    ...Engineering and KLJ had the burden of showing that they acted in good faith. See Klein v. Sanford USD Med. Ctr. , 2015 S.D. 95, ¶ 19, 872 N.W.2d 802, 807 (citing Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Cabela’s.com, Inc. , 2009 S.D. 39, ¶¶ 12-13, 766 N.W.2d 510, 513-14 ). Despite the court’s error, "[i]f th......
  • Healy v. Osborne
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • September 25, 2019
    ...the ruling of the [circuit] court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper." Klein v. Sanford USD Med. Ctr. , 2015 S.D. 95, ¶ 20, 872 N.W.2d 802, 808. Here, the court founded its decision on the statute of limitations and concluded that even if Bret once owned a portion of Healy Ranch vi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT