Wall v. Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Services

584 N.W.2d 395 (1998)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Wall v. Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Services

Minnesota Supreme Court
584 N.W.2d 395 (1998)

Facts

Sandra Slavik and Ruth Wall (plaintiffs) suffered from dissociative identity disorder, a psychological condition in which Slavik and Wall each manifested alternative identities that controlled behavior, knows as alters. Slavik and Wall were treated by a psychiatrist, Dr. William Routt, until 1991. In 1991, one of Slavik’s alters told a treatment counselor that Routt had sexually abused her. In 1992, one of Wall’s alters told a hospital staff member that Routt had abused her. Slavik and Wall sued and won judgments against Routt for abuse. Slavik and Wall also sued Kathy House (defendant), Routt’s psychiatric nurse, for failing to report Routt’s abuse as required under the Vulnerable Adults Act. House had accompanied Routt on rounds, attended treatment meetings, and liaised between Routt and other psychotherapists. Neither Slavik or Wall had reported Routt’s abuse to House. House was aware of allegations that Routt drank alcohol while treating patients but denied knowing that Routt drank on the job. Slavik and Wall testified that Routt had confided inappropriate personal information about himself during treatment but admitted that House had never been present on these occasions and that they had not told House about them. Erica Miles, another patient of Routt’s, testified that House knew that Routt had met Miles for ice cream and told Miles of his drinking problem and family issues and that House had seen Routt cry in front of Miles and seen the two of them hugging and kissing. The district court found that there was no evidence that House had knowledge of any abuse by Routt and that the evidence was not sufficient for House to have reasonable cause to suspect that Routt had abused Slavik or Wall. The court issued a directed verdict in favor of House. The court of appeals reversed. House appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)

Dissent (Gilbert, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership