Moon v. Mercy Hospital
| Decision Date | 23 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 19960,19960 |
| Citation | 150 Colo. 430,373 P.2d 944 |
| Parties | Viola MOON, Plaintiff in Error, v. MERCY HOSPITAL Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Wallace McCamant, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
T. Raber Taylor, Denver, for defendant in error.
Does the complaint of Viola Moon, seeking to recover damages from the hospital for an alleged injurious tort, 'state a claim upon which relief can be granted'? The trial court held that it did not, and accordingly entered a judgment of dismissal against her. This action of the trial court is the sole subject of attack by the present writ of error.
In substance the salient allegations of the complaint are: (1) that the hospital is a Colorado corporation; (2) that the hospital employed a doctor, 'a resident in surgery, duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of Colorado'; (3) that the doctor, as an employee of the hospital, diagnosed, treated and operated on Viola Moon; (4) that in the diagnosis, treatment and operation of Viola Moon, the doctor as such employee acted carelessly and negligently and the hospital 'carelessly and negligently failed to exercise proper supervision over its employee,' the doctor, in respect to diagnosis and treatment of her; (5) that serious permanent injury flowed from the said careless and negligent acts.
Certain statutory provisions relating to doctors and hospitals and a trilogy of decisions of this court predestine the outcome of this case.
The statutes are legislative declarations of the prevailing policy of this state in connection with the practice of medicine and the operation of hospitals. C.R.S. '53, 91-1-1 and 66-1-1 et seq.; Spears Free Clinic and Hospital v. State Board of Health, 122 Colo. 147, 220 P.2d 872.
C.R.S. '53, 91-1-6, defines the phrase, 'practice of medicine,' in great detail, and 91-1-7 lays down the conditions under which one may be licensed to practice medicine. The licensing of a hospital is provided for by C.R.S. '53, 66-4-1 et seq., as amended. These are distinct licenses permitting complementary but different services.
In the case of Purcell v. Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph, 147 Colo. ----, 364 P.2d 184, we made this pertinent observation:
'Under C.R.S. '53, 91-1-7, 'a license to practice medicine shall be granted by the board to an applicant' who meets certain requirements. A license to operate a hospital 'for the treatment or care of the sick or injured' is a prerequisite to the functioning of such an establishment, by C.R.S. '53, 66-4-1. These enactments are expressions of the legislative will that the two callings require different licenses. These licenses authorize related but different activities, and the issuance of the one does not permit operation under the other.
'We defer to that which the legislature plainly and unequivocally has treated as separate and distinct pursuits requiring different licenses. A hospital...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. Litvak
...human illnesses and any surgery performed in connection with such diagnosis and treatment constitute the practice of medicine. Moon, 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944. When a doctor performs these functions in a hospital setting, the hospital and its employees "subserve him in his administrations......
-
Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital
...Community Memorial Hospital, 50 Ill.App.2d 253, 200 N.E.2d 149 (1964), aff'd, 33 Ill.2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253 (1965).3 Moon v. Mercy Hospital, 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962); Cornelius v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc., 219 Md. 116, 148 A.2d 567 (1959); Minogue v. Rutland Hospital, Inc......
-
Brochner v. Western Ins. Co.
...found that the hospital acted negligently and that such negligence was independent of Brochner's negligence. See Moon v. Mercy Hospital, 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962). As a joint tortfeasor, the hospital has no right to seek indemnity from Brochner; its sole remedy lies in contribution......
-
Wright v. District Court In and For Jefferson County
...1972 to provide that remedies under the Act were exclusive. P.L. 92-576, effective November 26, 1972.3 See, e.g., Moon v. Mercy Hospital, 150 Colo. 430, 373 P.2d 944 (1962), which held that a hospital could not be found liable for the negligence of a staff doctor which it employed. "[A] hos......
-
The Physician as the Hospital's Employee: S.b. 95-212
...1986); Wilson v. Blue Cross of Southern California, 271 Cal. Rptr. 876 (Cal.App. Dist. 1990). 28. 149 P.2d 372 (Colo. 1944). 29. 373 P.2d 944 (Colo. 1962). 30. Rosane, supra, note 28 at 374; Moon, supra, note 29 at 946. 31. 849 P.2d 811 (Colo.App. 1992). 32. S.B. 95--212, § 2, to be codifie......
-
The Corporate Practice of Medicine: a Trap for the Unwary
...of imposing liability on a hospital for the professional negligence of a physician working in the facility. See, Moon v. Mercy Hospital, 373 P.2d 944 (Colo. 1962). Thus, it could be argued that where Parker held that corporations could be found to be practicing medicine, Moon and the cases ......
-
Of (allegedly) Bad Docs and (definitely) Good Dogs: Update on Choice of Entity for Healthcare Professionals
...81 (Sept. 2000). 2. Russell, 44 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2002). 3. CRS § 12-64-111(3). 4. Sparkman, supra, note 1. 5. Moon v. Mercy Hospital, 373 P.2d 944 (1962); Rosane Singer, 149 P.2d 372 (1944). 6. An LLP is a general partnership in which, insofar as general partnership law applies, the partner......
-
Health Care Litigation in Colorado: a Survey of Recent Decisions
...certiorari has been granted in each of these cases. NOTES 1. Rosane v. Sanger, 149 P.2d 372, 374 (Colo. 1944); Moon v. Mercy Hospital, 373 P.2d 944, 945-946 (Colo. 2. Scholtz v. Metropolitan Pathologists, P.C., 851 P.2d 901, 905-906 (Colo. 1993); Nieto v. State, 952 P.2d 834, 840-841 (Colo.......