Saint Luke’s Hospital’s warnings to other hospitals about the risk posed by Cullen

Saint Luke’s Hospital’s warnings to other hospitals about the risk posed by Cullen consisted of administrators’ calls concerning Charles Cullen after he left Saint Luke’s. The calls were selective: some hospitals were advised against hiring him, while others were not alerted. In later litigation with Somerset Medical Center, that uneven communication became a significant part of the dispute over which hospital should bear responsibility for claims brought by victims’ families.

Background and Dispute

The postscript situates the calls within a broader contest over institutional responsibility. Hospitals named in lawsuits argued that fault lay with earlier employers that had hired Cullen and allowed him to move on; Saint Barnabas Hospital, in particular, was characterized in those suits as the place where the serial killer emerged. One major dispute pitted Saint Luke’s Hospital against Somerset Medical Center. Somerset’s lawyers argued that Saint Luke’s should be responsible for lawsuits brought by families of victims at Somerset.

Scope of the Warnings

Saint Luke’s administrators had called other hospitals, advising some against hiring Cullen but failing to alert others. The account does not specify which hospitals received calls, when each call was made, or what was said beyond the advice against hiring him. It therefore presents the warnings not as a comprehensive notification system, but as uneven communication whose limits mattered once Cullen’s employment history became the subject of litigation.

Ruling and Significance

Judge Garruto of the New Jersey Superior Court sided with Somerset on the responsibility dispute without weighing the specific merits of the underlying cases. The fact that Saint Luke’s administrators had contacted other hospitals was one of the main contributors to his decision as to Saint Luke’s responsibility. The ruling gave legal weight to the calls, while also exposing the consequence of their selectivity: warning some institutions did not amount to warning all. The account summarizes the judge’s view of the administrators’ role as having effectively “decided who would live and who would die.”