## Facts

- Dr. James Preston Wasemiller, assisted by Dr. Paul Scot Wasemiller, performed gastric bypass surgery on Mary Larson at St. Francis Medical Center in April 2002.
- Mary Larson suffered serious postoperative complications requiring additional surgeries and an extended hospitalization.
- Mary and Michael Larson sued the physicians and their clinic for negligence in the surgery and follow-up care.
- The Larsons also sued St. Francis Medical Center, alleging the hospital negligently granted surgical privileges to Dr. James Wasemiller to perform bariatric surgery despite an unreasonable risk of harm to patients.
- St. Francis sought dismissal of the negligent-credentialing claim, asserting Minnesota did not recognize the tort and that the peer-review statute barred or limited such actions.

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota recognizes a common-law cause of action against a hospital for negligent credentialing (granting or maintaining physician privileges).
2. Whether Minnesota’s peer-review statute (including confidentiality and immunity provisions) negates, limits, or bars a negligent-credentialing claim.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota recognizes a common-law cause of action for negligent credentialing against a hospital.
- The court held that the peer-review statute does not abrogate or preclude negligent-credentialing claims.
- The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings, permitting the negligent-credentialing claim against St. Francis Medical Center to go forward.

## Legal Principles

- Hospitals have a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care in credentialing and privileging physicians, including decisions about which procedures a physician may perform.
- Negligent credentialing is a direct-liability theory against the hospital, grounded in ordinary negligence principles rather than vicarious liability.
- Statutes that arguably restrict common-law remedies are construed not to abolish common-law causes of action absent clear legislative intent.
- Peer-review confidentiality may restrict access to certain internal materials and complicate proof, but evidentiary limits do not eliminate the existence of a negligent-credentialing claim.
- Peer-review immunity and liability-limitation provisions can coexist with common-law negligence standards and do not materially change the hospital’s duty of reasonable care in privileging decisions.

## Conclusion

Minnesota law allows patients to sue hospitals for negligent credentialing based on a hospital’s failure to use reasonable care in granting or maintaining physician privileges, and the state peer-review statute preserves confidentiality and limited immunity without barring the underlying tort claim.


Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 2007)