Beeck v. Tucson General Hospital
500 P.2d 1153, 18 Ariz. App. 165, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 810 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital can be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the alleged negligence of a radiologist acting as an employee when the hospital exerts significant control over the radiologist's working conditions and the services provided are an inherent function of the hospital.
Facts:
- In 1968, Elly Beeck experienced back pains and consulted Dr. Louis Brickler, who arranged her admission to Tucson General Hospital and referred her to Dr. Willard Brown.
- Dr. Brown suspected a herniated lumbar disc and recommended a lumbar myelogram to be performed at Tucson General Hospital.
- During the myelogram, Dr. Brown, Dr. Frederick Rente (a radiologist), and Lester Henry (an x-ray technician) were present.
- The x-ray machine's screen, operated by Dr. Rente, descended and struck a needle Dr. Brown had inserted into Mrs. Beeck’s spine, causing fluid dye to escape because a descent-arresting stop on the machine was not in place.
- The myelogram attempt was abandoned, and Mrs. Beeck subsequently developed respiratory difficulties, which Dr. Brown opined might be pneumonia from the dye extravasation, possibly caused by his needle insertion or the x-ray screen striking the needle.
- Dr. Rente and Dr. Robert Kring had a five-year written agreement with Tucson General Hospital to be co-chairmen of the radiology department, receiving a percentage of gross revenue, and were generally prohibited from engaging in private practice.
- The hospital owned the x-ray equipment, bought supplies, provided x-ray technicians, billed for the radiologists’ services, and required the radiologists to comply with hospital policies, rules, and regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- Elly Beeck and Herman Beeck filed a medical malpractice action against Tucson General Hospital, Dr. Louis Brickler, Dr. Willard Brown, and Dr. Frederick Rente in the trial court.
- Dr. Brickler's motion for summary judgment on the pleadings was granted.
- Tucson General Hospital moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Tucson General Hospital's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Dr. Rente was an independent contractor and Lester Henry was a 'borrowed servant,' thus finding no hospital liability.
- Elly Beeck and Herman Beeck (appellants) appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to Tucson General Hospital (appellee) to the Court of Appeals of Arizona.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a hospital be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the alleged negligence of a radiologist when the hospital controls the radiologist's working conditions, and the radiologist's services are an inherent function of the hospital, despite a contract designating the radiologist as an independent contractor?
Opinions:
Majority - Hathaway, Judge
Yes, a hospital can be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the alleged negligence of a radiologist when the hospital controls the radiologist's working conditions, and the radiologist's services are an inherent function of the hospital. The court rejected the outdated Schloendorff rule, which distinguished between 'medical' and 'administrative' acts to limit hospital liability, citing the modern reality that hospitals are complex institutions providing comprehensive medical care, not merely facilities. Drawing on Bing v. Thunig, the court asserted that hospitals should be subject to the same respondeat superior principles as any other employer. The court found that an employer-employee relationship existed between Dr. Rente and Tucson General Hospital due to several factors: Mrs. Beeck did not choose Dr. Rente; his services were provided solely because of his status as a hospital radiologist; his contract made him co-chairman of the x-ray department; he was compensated by the hospital; he had limited ability to engage in private practice; the hospital owned all equipment, provided supplies and technicians, handled billing, and required compliance with hospital rules. These factors demonstrated that the hospital had the right to control the standards of performance of this radiologist and that radiology was an inherent function of the hospital. Therefore, the hospital could be held liable for Dr. Rente's actions under respondeat superior. The question of the x-ray technician's status became moot in light of this ruling.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands hospital liability by rejecting the antiquated 'medical vs. administrative' distinction that previously insulated hospitals from respondeat superior claims for professional negligence. By adopting the modern view from Bing v. Thunig, the court aligns Arizona with a national trend, holding hospitals accountable for the acts of professionals who, despite contractual language, operate under the hospital’s control and are essential to its function. This precedent encourages hospitals to implement stricter oversight and quality control measures for all staff, including physicians, to mitigate potential liability, effectively placing the burden of ensuring competent medical care more squarely on the institution.
