Home Table of Contents

AMI 1504 Duty of Hospital, Sanitarium, or Nursing Home

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 1504
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
November 2021 Update
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil
Chapter 15. Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
AMI 1504 Duty of Hospital, Sanitarium, or Nursing Home
A [hospital][sanitarium][nursing home] must use ordinary care [to determine the mental and physical condition of a patient][and][to furnish a patient the care and attention reasonably required by [his][her] mental and physical condition][and][to follow the orders and directions of the patient's attending physician].
NOTE ON USE
This instruction rather than AMI 1501 should be used when the claim does not involve a medical injury as defined in the Medical Malpractice Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-201(3).
This instruction should not be used when the hospital, nursing home, or medical care facility agrees to provide special care or attention.
COMMENT
This instruction is appropriate, and AMI 1501 is not appropriate, when the issue is whether a patient was properly supervised by the staff of a nursing home when he left the nursing home unnoticed, as such a claim does not involve a medical injury as defined in the Medical Malpractice Act. Bailey v. Rose Care Ctr, 307 Ark. 14, 19, 817 S.W.2d 412, 415 (1991).
Arkansas's Medical Malpractice Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-114-201 to 212 does not confer a cause of action for negligent credentialing. Paulino v. QHG of Springdale, Inc., 2012 Ark. 55, at 10.
The defense of charitable immunity is often raised in cases brought against hospitals, sanitariums, and nursing homes. The Arkansas Supreme Court has provided eight factors to be considered when determining whether a corporation is entitled to charitable immunity. Masterson v. Stambuck, 321 Ark. 391, 902 S.W.2d 803 (1995). In Progressive Eldercare Servs-Saline, Inc. v. Cauffiel, 2016 Ark. App. 523, 508 S.W.3d 59 (2016), the Arkansas Court of Appeals, in an en banc opinion, affirmed the denial of a motion for summary judgment on the defense of charitable immunity. The Court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the facility had abused the charitable form.
End of Document