Dermody v. Crothall Healthcare Inc.

Background

Emma Dermody, a medical intensive-care nurse at Westchester Medical Center, alleged that she suffered physical and mental injuries during a September 8, 2020 patient transfer. Westchester Medical Center had contracted with Crothall Healthcare Inc. and Compass Group USA, Inc. to provide patient-transport services.

During the transfer, Dermody, a respiratory therapist, a courier, and a vascular interventional radiology nurse were moving a patient from a procedure table onto a mobile hospital bed. While Dermody was still moving the lower half of the patient, the courier used the bed’s controls, causing Dermody’s hand to become caught between the bed’s foot and a doorframe. Dermody alleged that the courier operated the bed negligently. She received workers’ compensation benefits arising from the accident.

The Defendants’ Motion

The defendants sought summary judgment, which is a ruling without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result. They argued that the courier’s alleged negligence should be treated as negligence attributable to Westchester Medical Center because the courier was a “special employee” of that medical center. A special employee is a worker temporarily assigned to serve another employer. The defendants further argued that workers’ compensation was Dermody’s exclusive remedy for an injury caused by her employer or a special employee of that employer.

Dermody argued that a factual dispute existed about whether the courier remained an employee of the defendants when the accident occurred. If so, she argued, the defendants could owe her a duty of care, and her receipt of workers’ compensation benefits would not alone bar her negligence claim.

Court’s Analysis

Under New York law, a negligence claim requires proof of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. Whether a worker is a special employee is usually a factual question. Courts consider the alleged special employer’s control over the worker’s manner and details of work, payment, power to discharge, provision of equipment, and the nature and purpose of the work. Control over the worker’s work is particularly important. The general employer is presumed to remain the employer unless there is a clear showing that it surrendered control and the alleged special employer assumed control.

The court identified facts suggesting that Westchester Medical Center exercised meaningful control. The medical center had contracted for patient-transport services; its personnel requested couriers, who received dispatch orders and reported to the requested locations; and Dermody, as the patient’s primary nurse, was responsible for coordinating the participants’ roles in the transfer.

But the parties provided little information about who paid the couriers, who could discharge them, and who furnished their equipment. The available facts pointed in different directions. The court noted that Westchester Medical Center may have furnished the beds and other heavy equipment, while the defendants’ office at the hospital suggested that the defendants retained some control over their couriers. The parties also disputed how much control Westchester Medical Center had over the courier’s operation of the bed. Dermody said she did not direct the courier how to operate it; the defendants asserted that she was responsible for approving movement of the bed after the patient was placed on it.

Ruling

The court held that the uncertainty about the respective control exercised by Westchester Medical Center and the defendants created a triable issue of fact—an issue that could reasonably be decided in either side’s favor at trial—about whether the courier was Westchester Medical Center’s special employee. That issue also affected whether the defendants owed Dermody a duty of care. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The parties were directed to appear for a telephonic pretrial conference on September 21, 2023.