The decision is without prejudice to the right to pursue the claim against the health authority
The BC Court of Appeal has upheld the immunity of nurses from personal lawsuits, finding that the Health Authorities Act shields them from suits for the actions they undertook in good faith within their professional duties.
The dispute in Manns v. Vancouver Island Health Authority, 2024 BCCA 110 concerns nurses who were involved in the medical care of Erik Michael Manns. In 2017, Erik tragically passed away at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital following complications from pancreatitis. The appeal, initiated by Erik's mother, Paivi Manns, centred around the legal liability of the nurses and the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) under the Health Authorities Act for alleged medical negligence.
Manns' legal action was originally directed against the VIHA and individual nurses, asserting that an overdose of opioid medication, negligently administered, contributed to her son’s demise. However, the trial judge ruled in favour of the nurses' immunity from personal lawsuits based on the Health Authorities Act, emphasizing that this did not preclude the pursuit of negligence claims against the VIHA for vicarious liability.
On appeal, Manns contended this limitation impeded her legal strategy, notably affecting her ability to directly interrogate the nurses involved. She argued that the opportunity for discovery is crucial for medical negligence claims, which often involve a team of healthcare professionals
The central legal question revolved around the scope of the immunity provisions within the Health Authorities Act, with both the trial judge and the appellate court meticulously examining the statutory language and its implications for healthcare workers’ liability.
The BC Court of Appeal concurred with the lower court’s interpretation, highlighting that the Act distinctly shields health authority employees from personal lawsuits for actions undertaken in good faith within their professional duties. This statutory protection, however, does not extend to the health authority itself, which can still be held vicariously liable.
The court rejected the appellant's broader interpretations of the act, which sought to limit immunity to policy or managerial functions instead of direct patient care. It underscored the importance of statutory text, context, and purposes in its analysis, ultimately finding no ambiguity that would warrant a deviation from the act's plain meaning.
Moreover, the court considered but dismissed various contextual and policy arguments presented by both parties, concluding that the act’s straightforward provision of immunity for health authority employees, including nurses, in performing their duties is unambiguous.
The court underscored the complexity of legal protections afforded to healthcare workers under BC’s Health Authorities Act. It reaffirmed the legislative framework designed to balance the interests of health professionals and patients within the public healthcare system. Ultimately, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the individual nurses without prejudice to the appellant’s right to pursue those claims against the VIHA.
