The ruling by Illinois Supreme court in the case of York v Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center is a classic example of the vicarious liability of a hospital for the wrongful act of an independent contractor under the doctrine of apparent agency.
The case involves Dr. James York, a retired orthopedic surgeon who was admitted in Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center (“Rush-Presbyterian”) for three knee surgeries. During the third surgery, the attending anesthesiologist erroneously pierced the spinal cord of Dr. York permanently damaging some of the nerves. He sued Rush-Presbyterian for damages.
The Supreme Court reviewed the rulings of the lower court, which were adverse to the hospital. The center focus was on the application of doctrine of apparent agency in the context of a medical malpractice action. Supreme Court noted that the following three conditions must be proved by the plaintiff in order to hold the hospital vicariously liable.
- “The hospital or its agent The hospital, or its agent, must have acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital
- Where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must show that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in the acts and
- The plaintiff must have acted in reasonable reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent” (Basberry.com)
The court mainly relied on the third condition in establishing the vicarious liability on the hospital. The court was of the opinion if the plaintiff relied upon the hospital for undergoing the treatment instead of on his faith on a particular physician then the third condition can be said to have been satisfied.
The court was clear in stating that when a patient enters a hospital he expects to receive the required care from the hospital except to that part of the treatment to be provided by the physician chosen by the patient. In case if the patient has not opted for any specific physician then it can reasonably be assumed that, he relied on the hospital to provide the complete medical care. This complete medical care can be taken to include the provision of support services like radiology, pathology and anesthesiology. These services are expected to be provided to the patients through the hospital staff.
Even though, reliance was placed on the third condition, the Court also took into account the first condition by stating that the first condition will be deemed as satisfied in cases, where the hospital holds itself out to the patient as a complete service provider. In this case, the hospital should have used such support services without informing the patient that it relies on an independent contractor for the provision of any service. The Court further observed that the plaintiff would not be entitled to presume the existence of an apparent agency if the patient knows or should have known that some of the services are being provided by independent contractors and the plaintiff has the knowledge of the independent medical status of such contractor.
The Court further observed that Dr. York chose the hospital for his medical care based on the reputation of the hospital in providing quality medical service. The hospital also failed to keep Dr. York informed of the fact that the anesthesiologist was an independent contractor and not an employee of the hospital (Basberry.com).
Work Cited
Basberry.com. Illionois Case Holds Hospital Liable for Independent contractor Anesthesiologist. 2009. Web.