Adamski vs. Tacoma General Hospital
Case Analysis HCM 388
Whittney Tyrone
April 27, 2013
I.
Procedure.
a.
Who are the parties?
Richard D. Adamski (Plaintiff) Dr. Tsoi, and Tacoma Emergency Care Physicians, P.S. (TECP), and Tacoma
General (Defendants)
b.
Who brought the action?

c.
Richard D. Adamski
In what court did the case originate?

d.
The Court Of Appeals Washington, Division Two
Who won at the trial-court level?

e.
Defendant Tacoma General Hospital won at the trial-level
What is the appellate history of the case?

The issue of Dr. Tsoi's agency and the issue of negligence on the behave of the nurses, which a
summary judgment may be granted only when the record before the trial-court presents no
genuine issues of material fact and entitles the moving party to judgment of the matter.
II.
Facts
a.
What are the relevant facts as recited by this court?








On 1/9/74 the plaintiff injured his finger playing basketball.
The plaintiff was aided by a friend the bone was forced back into position with a bandage to
cover & continued the game.
Later that evening the plaintiff went to Tacoma General Hospital.
The plaintiff first explained to the ER nurse what happened, x-ray was taken and the defendant
then the doctor in charge irrigated debrided, cleaned the injury with saline solution, and closed
with nylon sutures, and bandaged.
Physician told the plaintiff to follow up with primary physician in 5-6 days to remove stitched or
otherwise.
The plaintiff received instructions on care after suturing.
That evening plaintiff's hand began to swell and was somewhat tender; the next day the
swelling had increased and he experienced severe pain.
Plaintiff then called the hospital and the nurse on duty told him that what he was experiencing
was not unusual.



The January the 11th the plaintiff called the ER again, to them his situation, an asked to be seen
by the physician but once again told his symptoms were not unusual and to see his primary
physician.
The plaintiff tried contacting an orthopedic whom he had seen before, which was unsuccessful
who refer him to Lakewood General Hospital.
The plaintiffs swelling was due to staphylococcus infection that spread through the bone
needing immediate care.
b. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?




Did the treatment consist of irrigated, debrided, cleaning the injury with saline solution, and
closed with nylon sutures, and bandaged doesn’t seem like the appropriate care for a broken
finger provided by a doctor to the patient.
Lack of information in the case from the plaintiffs x-rays.
The plaintiff was given follow up instructions for his injury that pertained to swelling but he
called the hospital twice and wanted to see the physician but was told his symptoms were not
unusual both times, so they basically refused to treat him.
Lakewood hospital placed him on an antibiotic for condition
III.
Issues
a.
What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?

b.
Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?

IV.
The Precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court is malpractice (negligence), Dr. Tsoi was
acting as the Hospital's agent, and the Hospital's nurse-employees were negligent also.
I agree with the court that the hospital should not be liable for the defendant’s negligence but I
disagree because being an independent contractor doesn’t mean you can take advantage of
people and do your job somewhat, you should treat every patient as if they are dying. He acted
with negligence treating the broken finger thinking that it was just a minor injury. Also the
plaintiff followed the defendants care instructions and was told his swelling was unusual to
contact the ER and when doing so they refused to see him, which I also believe was an act of
negligence because the patient was told to contact ER if swelling worsens in this case he would
have had to come back to the ER because it was impossible to see over the phone.
Holding.
a.
What is the court’s precise holding (decision)?
 Dr. Tsoi was an independent contractor and not an employee of the hospital, and refused to
hold the hospital liable on a respondent superior theory. The court found there were no proof
Tacoma General's nurses acted negligently. Accordingly, Tacoma General's motion for summary
judgment was granted and it was dismissed from the lawsuit.
b.
What is its rationale for that decision?
 The rationale for the decision to an extent I believe that the doctor & nurses did in fact to some
degree act negligent with the plaintiff during treatment and follow up.
c.
Do you agree with that rationale?
 Yes
V.
Implications
a.
What does the case mean for healthcare today?

b.
This means that even though a facility has efficient staff, and advanced technology there is still
room for error especially in the ER, so every individual needs to do their job to the best of their
ability to decrease the number of errors.
What were its implications when the decision was announced?

The implications of the decision implied that the doctor was an independent contractor and was
not an employee of the hospital.
d.
How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications?
 Healthcare administrators should be prepared to deal with similar issues having the knowledge
that ER care is so sudden and there is more room for error and mistakes, so if you treat every
patient as if they are dying there may be a chance of a decrease in law suits.
d.
What would be different today if the case had been decided differently?

If the case had been decided differently it might have proven that the defendants not were
negligent with the care provided to the plaintiff, however the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient
to create a genuine issue of negligence on the part of the Hospital's emergency room personnel
in failing to provide proper follow-up treatment.
Students’ Opinion and Courts’ Opinion
Students

I strongly agree that the case showed negligence with treatment and care provided to the
plaintiff’s injury. Also I believed the nurses acted upon negligent attempting to judge swelling
over the phone instead of having the plaintiff come back in to follow-up on the injury to avoid
law suits, which is a future problem.
Courts

The court’s decision on the case decided correctly proving the defendant was an individual
contractor, not an apparent agency, and not an employee of the hospital. Therefore the hospital
is not liable also having no proof that the nurses were negligent with the plaintiff.
Bibliography
http://www.westlaw.com (20 Wash.App. 98, 579 P.2d 970) Adamski v. Tacoma General Hospital