The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court's summary judgment ruling in favor of the University of Kansas Hospital Authority in a case involving allegations of negligent supervision following a sexual assault by a hospital employee.
Tamatha Hennessey brought the action against the University of Kansas Hospital Authority, alleging that a hospital employee sexually assaulted her during a radiologic procedure. Hennessey claimed the hospital negligently failed to supervise the employee, making the institution liable for the assault that occurred during her medical treatment.
The case, *Hennessey v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority*, was decided by a three-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Holmes and Circuit Judges Tymkovich and Moritz. The court issued its order and judgment on Jan. 2, 2025, without oral argument, determining unanimously that oral proceedings would not materially assist in resolving the appeal.
The district court had previously granted summary judgment to the University of Kansas Hospital Authority, reasoning that Hennessey had not established a genuine factual issue about whether the assault was foreseeable to the hospital. This finding was crucial to the negligent supervision claim, as foreseeability is typically a key element in establishing institutional liability for employee misconduct.
Hennessey appealed the district court's decision pro se, representing herself without legal counsel in the appellate proceedings. The case was designated as No. 24-3163 in the Tenth Circuit, with the underlying district court case numbered 2:21-CV-02231-EFM in the District of Kansas.
Negligent supervision claims against healthcare institutions typically require plaintiffs to demonstrate that the employer knew or should have known of an employee's propensity for the type of conduct that caused the harm. This often involves showing prior incidents, complaints, or warning signs that would have put a reasonable employer on notice of potential risks.
The Tenth Circuit's affirmance suggests that Hennessey was unable to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the hospital's knowledge or reason to know of any risk posed by the employee. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes about material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The court's decision was issued as an order and judgment rather than a formal published opinion, indicating that the panel found the legal issues sufficiently straightforward that extensive written analysis was unnecessary. The court noted that while the decision is not binding precedent, it may be cited for its persuasive value under federal appellate rules.
Radiologic procedures, which involve medical imaging such as X-rays, CT scans, or MRI examinations, often require patients to be in vulnerable positions and may involve varying degrees of undressing or positioning. Healthcare institutions typically implement protocols and supervision measures to protect patients during such procedures.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in healthcare settings regarding patient safety and institutional liability for employee misconduct. Hospitals and medical facilities must balance operational efficiency with adequate supervision and oversight of staff members who have direct patient contact.
For healthcare institutions, the decision underscores the importance of having clear policies and procedures in place for patient protection, particularly during procedures that may leave patients in vulnerable situations. While the hospital prevailed in this case, institutions typically benefit from robust training programs, background checks, and supervision protocols.
The Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, plus portions of Montana and Wyoming. The court's decisions in healthcare liability cases often influence how similar claims are evaluated throughout the region.
Pro se appellants, like Hennessey in this case, face particular challenges in federal appeals courts, where complex procedural rules and legal standards can be difficult to navigate without legal training. The appellate process requires detailed knowledge of evidence rules, burden of proof standards, and appellate procedure.
The affirmance of summary judgment suggests that the evidentiary record, as developed during district court proceedings, did not contain sufficient facts to support Hennessey's negligent supervision theory. This could indicate gaps in discovery, witness testimony, or documentary evidence regarding the hospital's knowledge of any risk factors.
Moving forward, the decision stands as the final resolution of Hennessey's claims against the University of Kansas Hospital Authority. The case serves as a reminder of the evidentiary burdens plaintiffs face when pursuing negligent supervision claims against healthcare institutions and the importance of developing a complete factual record during discovery proceedings.