Mission responds to medical malpractice lawsuit
Dec. 14—The second salvo has dropped in what will no doubt be a long legal process initiated by a Canton family against Mission Health, which has now filed its response to the September lawsuit.
Canton Mayor Zeb Smathers, his wife, Ashley, and their son, Stone, are suing the largest healthcare provider in Western North Carolina over their traumatic birth experience in March 2020 where the family alleges "egregious acts of medical and corporate negligence."
Ashley Smathers endured 29 hours of labor, was on the brink of death and had to wait nearly five hours after a C-section was ordered before the surgery took place.
Two separate responses were filed to the lawsuit: one from HCA Healthcare, Inc., Mission Health Master Holdings, LLLP and Mission Health Hospital Manager, LLC; and another by Mission Hospital, LLLP.
Both responses contended the lawsuit should be dismissed because of the immunity granted to healthcare providers under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act. It wasn't passed until May 2020, but was pre-dated to be effective as of March 10, 2020 — the date N.C. Gov. Roy Cooper declared a COVID state of emergency.
The legislation broadly protects health care facilities and health care providers from liabilities that may result from treatment of individuals during the COVID public health emergency.
It was a response attorneys for the Smathers family anticipated. Robert Zaytoun of the law firm Zaytoun, Ballew and Taylor, argued in the lawsuit that there was not a single COVID patient being treated at Mission during the time the Smathers family was there for the birth of Stone.
The lawsuit could be a precedent setting case, as Zaytoun further challenged the retroactive nature of the emergency Covid law, as well as a state law placing a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.
James W.K. Wilde with the Asheville firm Roberts & Stevens, P.A., is the attorney for the group of Mission and HCA defendants. His response argued the corporate owners of the hospital had no direct provider-to-patient relationship nor did they directly provide any health care treatment. He cited a 2009 court case, Seagle v. Cross, concluding that without the health care-provider-patient relationship, the business cannot be held liable.
The separate MH Mission Hospital, LLLP response contends the health care provided at the hospital was in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same heath care professions with similar training and experience in similar communities. Wilde argued in his response that the Smathers cannot establish that the hospital deviated from the standard of health care, and thus have no claim against the hospital.
In addition, the lawsuit states, the obstetricians and obstetrical advanced healthcare providers were hired by the plaintiff and were not employees of Mission Hospital.
"For that reason, Mission Hospital cannot be liable for the acts or omissions," the response states.
Wilde argued the hospital is entitled to immunity under the emergency declaration "because the pandemic affected every aspect of our healthcare system, both directly and indirectly, and March 2020 was a time of extraordinary tension and uncertainty for healthcare providers."
Wilde also stated the plaintiffs "cannot establish that an act or omission by an employee or agent of the answering defendant was the proximate cause of any injury or damages to the plaintiffs."
The lawsuit claimed the allegations for punitive damages are contrary to state law and are "frivolous and malicious."
If the judge doesn't dismiss the lawsuit, as was requested by the hospital and its corporate owners, the case will move toward a trial.
