From our private database of 32,100+ case briefs...
Thompson v. Nason Hospital
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
591 A.2d 703 (1991)
In 1978, Linda Thompson (plaintiff) was injured in an accident when her car collided with a school bus. She was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Nason Hospital (defendant) in critical condition. Thompson’s husband, Donald, advised hospital personnel that Linda was taking the blood-thinning drug, Coumadin, had a permanent pacemaker, and was taking other heart medications. Dr. Edward Schultz, a general practitioner, was asked by a hospital nurse to examine Thompson. X-rays revealed that she suffered leg and foot fractures as well as extensive lacerations over her left eye and the back of her head, constricted pupils, a brain concussion, an enlarged heart with a murmur, and amnesia. Ophthalmologist Dr. Larry Jones sutured Thompson’s eye lacerations while another orthopedic physician advised against other aggressive treatment until her critical medical condition improved, which it did not. Due to her multiple injuries sustained in the car accident and her heart condition, Thompson was admitted by Schultz to Nason’s intensive care unit. The following morning, Dr. Mark Paris, a general surgeon on Nason’s staff, examined Thompson and found her unable to move her left foot and toes. Also, a Babinski test indicated a neurological, intracerebral problem. Later, Thompson had complete paralysis on her left side and was transferred to Hershey Medical Center because of her progressive neurological problem. There, she underwent tests that revealed the presence of a large intracerebral hematoma in her brain. She was discharged with the paralysis to her left side. Thompson filed suit against Nason Hospital alleging that her injuries were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Nason acting through its agents, servants, and employees in failing to appropriately examine and treat her. After the trial court (Superior Court) adopted a theory of corporate negligence applicable to Nason Hospital, the hospital requested permission for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review the appropriateness of the theory.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Zappala, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 582,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 582,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.