[Sources: Health Lawyers Weekly, May 30, 2008 (Vol. 6, Iss. 21) - AHLA]
Two hospitals in separate medical malpractice actions may be liable for the alleged negligence of certain independent contractor physicians based on an apparent agency theory, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled recently.
Reversing appeals court decisions granting summary judgment in the hospitals’ favor, the high court found material issues of fact as to whether the hospitals provided the patients in question with adequate notice that the physicians were independent contractors rather than employees.
The opinions noted the issue of a hospital’s vicarious liability for the actions of independent contractor physicians under an apparent agency theory was one of first impression for the high court.
The high court therefore looked to case law in other jurisdictions and eventually adopted the analysis derived from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 419, which requires a plaintiff in such cases to show (1) the hospital held itself out to the public as providing medical services; (2) the plaintiff looked to the hospital rather than to the individual physician to perform those services; and (3) the patient accepted those services in the reasonable belief that they were provided by the hospital or a hospital employee.
The high court noted a key issue in resolving vicarious liability actions against a hospital will often turn on whether it provided “meaningful” notice.
Although the patients in both cases at issue signed consent forms indicating the physicians providing the medical services were independent contractors, the high court found material issues of fact as to whether this constituted “meaningful” notice. Continue reading
Boren v. Weeks, No. M2007-00628-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 6, 2008).
Dewald v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., No. M2006-02369-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. May 12, 2008).
