Parties Involved
A case for medical malpractice was filed by Regina Sampson as the patient subjected to wrong treatment. Dr. Michael Contillo was the physician attended on the patient. Mount Vermon Hospital was the healthcare service provider. The hospital prayed for dismissal of all claims against it under summary judgment. The decision of the trial court went in favor of the hospital and the court dismissed the claims of Regina Sampson against the hospital. The plaintiff made an appeal.
Facts of the Case
On hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division decided to make a reversal of the judgment delivered by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court admitted the claims of the plaintiff and ordered for the settlement of the claims by Mount Vermon Hospital. The court in its decision remarked that the plaintiff has an obligation to prove that the hospital failed ton provide healthcare service of a reasonable standard. This is essential to the claim for establishing the medical malpractice claim. It is also essential that the plaintiff has suffered injury because of the breach committed by the hospital to provide quality service.
Reason for Liability
In general, there cannot arise a vicarious liability for a hospital for the malpractice of a physician attending privately and is not in employment with the hospital. However there is an exception to this general rule. This exception is to be applied when the treatment was accorded to the patient on her specific request on entering the hospital. It is also necessary that the plaintiff has not chosen any particular physician to attend her. However, in this case the exception could not be applied as the plaintiff did not dispute the prima facie claim by Mount Vermon Hospital about the employment status of the attending physician. Therefore the question of the defendant incurring any vicarious liability for the alleged malpractice of the attending physician does not arise. With the application of the common law the principal is not held liable for the wrongful acts of an independent contractor.
However, the Appellate Court felt that the theory of apparent or ostensible agency by estoppels holds good in this case. According to the theory of estoppels, Mount Vermon Hospital has to undertake vicarious liability for the negligence or wrongful act of Dr. Michael Contillo, the independent attending physician. (Tammello, 2008).
The presence of an apparent agency can be established by the words or acts of the principal, provided the third party relied on such words or acts to believe the authority of the agent in providing the service on behalf of the principal. Further, the third party should have relied on the assumed relationship between the principal and the agent and accepted to receive the service offered by the defendant. The third party need not have relied exclusively on the skill of the agent. Therefore, in order to establish the ‘agency by holding out’ the court should take into account all the circumstances associated with the treatment for the determination of the reliance of the patient on the services of the attending physician including the words and conduct of the hospital. In view of this legal position the Appellate Court reversed the Trail Court orders and decided the case in favor of the plaintiff fixing the vicarious liability on Mount Vermon Hospital.
Reference
Tammello, A. D. (2008). NY: Summary Judgment for Hospital Reversed: ‘Ostensible’ or ‘Apparent’ Agency Rule Applied.