strict product liability and medical malpractice. The hospital chal-
lenged the suit, saying that the patient's claims sounded only in med-
ical malpractice, and because she did not include the correct expert
support for her malpractice claim, the suit should be dismissed.
However, the court ruled that while the malpractice claims could
not proceed without the proper expert support, the product liability
claim could continue. In it, the patient argued that the hospital, acting
as a seller of the medication, sold her a defective product without
revealing the information about the risks associated with it.
Additionally, the court found that the hospital's pricing of the medica-
tion did not involve the patient's diagnosis or treatment, further
strengthening the patient's product liability claim. The case is now
pending trial.
How this could impact you
Any facility that provides medication or medical devices to patients
should pay attention to this case. When a product malfunctions during
the course of medical treatment, a patient can usually sue for prod-
ucts liability and medical malpractice under the law. After the suit is
filed, the court determines the entity that's ultimately responsible for
the injury — typically the manufacturer, designer or vendor for selling
a defective product, or the provider for giving poor care to the patient.
Generally, it is preferable for healthcare facilities to be sued for
medical malpractice and not product liability, since malpractice suits
come with strict burdens that patients often don't or can't meet,
resulting in a dismissal of the suit. In this case, that happened with
the malpractice claims the patient brought against the hospital; how-
ever, it still got hit with the product liability claim, which comes with
lower burdens for the plaintiff and potentially higher financial penal-
ties for the defendant. There are a few reasons why that occurred.
4 2 • O U T PA T I E N T S U R G E R Y M A G A Z I N E • A P R I L 2 0 1 6
Medical Malpractice
MM