Do Good Samaritan laws protect you in the hospital?

An appeals court has made it harder for doctors in Texas to respond to inpatient emergencies, critics charge. Are they being alarmist?

By Wayne J. Guglielmo
Senior Editor

Ob/gyn Douglas K. McIntyre of Austin, TX, probably wishes he'd been out of town on April 23, 1998. On that day, McIntyre voluntarily responded to a "Dr. Stork" page at St. David's Medical Center in Austin. The delivery—in progress when he arrived and complicated by shoulder dystocia—resulted in permanent neurological damage to the baby. The parents sued McIntyre, among others, claiming he had exerted excessive traction during delivery.

McIntyre asked that the trial court grant him summary judgment based on the Texas Good Samaritan statute. His motion was granted, but in a 2-1 vote last October an appeals court reversed the ruling and tossed the case back to the lower court. In December, McIntyre petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review. In April, the high court requested a briefing on the merits of the appeal.

The case has stirred interest in Texas, and beyond, because it raises questions about the circumstances under which doctors who voluntarily offer emergency assistance inside a hospital are protected as Good Samaritans—something state courts (including Texas') disagree on. Complicating the case further is the peculiar nature of the Texas law, which includes remuneration standards that most other state statutes don't.