Laster v. Henry Ford Health Sys. — Aug. 2016 (Summary)

APPARENT AGENCY

Laster v. Henry Ford Health Sys.
Docket No. 324739 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2016)

The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed a lower court’s denial of a request for summary judgment in favor of a health system in a malpractice lawsuit filed by a patient who was attempting to hold the health system liable for the acts of an independent contractor physician on the theory of vicarious liability.

The patient had come to the emergency room complaining of sharp abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and a history of Crohn’s disease.  Following a CT scan, the emergency department contacted the on-call general surgeon, believing the patient had appendicitis.  The surgeon required the patient to sign a consent form prior to performing an appendectomy, which stated, among other things, that she acknowledged that the surgeon was not an employee of the hospital.  Following the procedure, the patient continued to experience complications.  Ultimately, after two additional surgical procedures, it was determined the patient was suffering from a bowel perforation, secondary to her Crohn’s disease.  The patient alleged that the surgeon was negligent in evaluating her condition and performing surgery because he failed to diagnose and treat the perforation of her bowel, and further alleged that the health system was vicariously liable for the doctor’s malpractice, claiming that the on-call policy of the hospital, under which the surgeon came to be involved in her care, was evidence of sufficient control over the surgeon to establish liability on behalf of the health system under the theory of apparent agency.

The court disagreed, concluding that the health system had very little control over the surgeon, noting that he was free to treat patients how he saw fit, he billed his patients directly, and that he was part of an entirely separate group practice with its own staff and employees. Additionally, the hospital never compensated the doctor for his services, and he was free to obtain privileges at other hospitals. Accordingly, the court reasoned that because the patient’s claim was based on the doctor exercising professional judgment, over which the hospital had no control, the court held that the doctor was not an agent of the hospital. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court’s decision to deny the health system’s motion for summary disposition and remanded back to the lower court with instructions to grant the summary disposition in favor of the health system.