Hospital Liability the Parties Involved in the

Hospital Liability The parties involved in the case are Charles Cullen, the primary guilty party, the families of the victims who were murdered by Cullen's actions, and the hospitals that employed Cullen, including the Somerset Medical Center. Other hospitals that employed him are located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In 2003, Charles Cullen was arrested for the murder of 29 patients in hospitals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Of these victims, 13 were at Somerset Medical Center. Cullen had stolen medications to murder these patients (Serial Killer Central, 2008).

In 2008, an appeals court case was to decide whether the families of the victims have the right to sue the medical centers and hospitals that employed Cullen at the time of the murders. Other outcomes were that hospitals were ordered to report serious medical mistakes both to patients and state regulators. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, requirements were also tightened to oblige hospitals to provide more detailed job references to prevent suspect personnel to easily obtain jobs in similar institutions.

Cullen moved from one job to another despite being fired from at least six facilities where he was employed. These facilities are liable by association as a result of their silence regarding Cullen's misconduct during his employment with them. The institutions' liability is based upon the fact that they employed a suspect individual to care for patients without conducting the necessary background checks that would have revealed him as such. By association, the deaths could have been prevented by means of more thorough background checks.

According to Silvers, Langsam & Weitzman, P.C. (2011), hospitals, as care facilities, are expected to provide the highest level of care while also ensuring that all their patients remain healthy and safe. They are therefore obliged, by law, to supervise their personnel thoroughly to ensure that such care and health are promoted. In addition to the supervising function, care facilities are also obliged to hire competent personnel and to ensure that they receive high quality, relevant training for the work they are to perform.

In Cullen's case, the hiring practice was clearly flawed. After he successfully entered the respective institutions where he was employed, the failure of supervision practices was also obvious. Hence, the hospitals in question are liable for the wrongful conduct of an employee that was not hired on the strength of thorough background checking nor supervised sufficiently to prevent harm to patients. According to the LSU Law Center (2011), hospitals, as employers of nursing and other medical staff, are liable for negligent injuries caused by their employees.

This is even more so in Cullen's situation, where the injury caused was deliberate. Cullen's successful application for work at the various institutions can be termed negligent in terms of the failure by the institutions in questions to thoroughly background check him. According to Woodruff (n.d.), hospitals in the past were somewhat insulated from wrongdoing by their personnel. However, it is cases like those of Cullen that provided a platform for change and for some degree of closure for family members.

Clearly hospitals and medical facilities that failed to safeguard their patients from suspicious personnel should be held liable for the deaths that resulted. Buchanan & Buchanan (2011) confirms that hospitals are liable for any actions by their personnel that result in harm or death of patients. Generally, law suits in this regard concern negligence by doctors, nurses, or other.