Burless v. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc.
215 W.Va. 765, 601 S.E.2d 85 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor physician under an apparent agency theory if the plaintiff establishes that: (1) the hospital's action or inaction would cause a reasonable person to believe the physician was an agent of the hospital, and (2) the plaintiff relied on that apparent agency relationship.
Facts:
- Jaclyn Burless and Melony Pritt both sought medical care for their pregnancies, which led them to West Virginia University Hospitals (WVUH).
- Burless was referred to WVUH by her primary doctor for an ultrasound and later for high-risk prenatal care provided at a clinic on WVUH premises.
- Pritt presented to the WVUH emergency room and was subsequently directed to receive her prenatal care at a clinic associated with the hospital.
- Both women were treated at WVUH facilities by physicians who were employed by the West Virginia University Board of Trustees (BOT), not WVUH.
- Both women signed consent forms provided by WVUH which stated, 'I understand that the faculty physicians and resident physicians who provide treatment in the hospital are not employees of the hospital.'
- Burless's daughter was born with severe injuries following an allegedly mismanaged induced labor at WVUH.
- Pritt underwent a cystectomy at WVUH during her pregnancy, developed a subsequent infection, and gave birth prematurely to a son who suffered severe permanent injuries.
- Both women later stated that they believed the doctors treating them at the hospital were WVUH employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Jaclyn Burless filed a negligence lawsuit against West Virginia University Hospitals (WVUH) and the West Virginia University Board of Trustees (BOT) in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County (trial court).
- Melony Pritt filed a separate, similar negligence lawsuit against WVUH and the BOT in the same trial court.
- In both cases, WVUH moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no agency relationship with the treating physicians.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of WVUH in both cases, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to either actual or apparent agency.
- Burless and Pritt, as appellants, separately appealed the final orders to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, where the cases were consolidated. WVUH is the appellee.
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 vicariously liable under a theory of apparent agency for the alleged negligence of independent contractor physicians who treated patients within its facilities, even when the patients signed a consent form stating certain physicians are not hospital employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, Justice
Yes. A hospital can be held vicariously liable under a theory of apparent agency for the negligence of independent contractor physicians. While no actual agency relationship existed between the physicians and WVUH, the question of apparent agency presents a triable issue of fact. The court establishes a two-part test for apparent agency in the hospital context, requiring a plaintiff to show: (1) the hospital acted or failed to act in a way that would cause a reasonable person to believe the physician was a hospital agent, and (2) the plaintiff relied on this apparent agency relationship. Modern hospitals hold themselves out as full-service providers, leading patients to look to the institution for care. The disclaimer signed by the patients was ambiguous because it required them to distinguish between 'faculty physicians' and 'resident physicians,' an unreasonable expectation. Therefore, the disclaimer was not sufficient, as a matter of law, to provide meaningful notice and defeat the claim. The plaintiffs' testimony that they believed the doctors were hospital employees is sufficient evidence of reliance to survive summary judgment.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Maynard, Chief Justice
No. The hospital should not be held vicariously liable because no apparent agency existed. While there was no actual agency, the grant of summary judgment on apparent agency should also be affirmed. The disclaimer signed by the plaintiffs was unambiguous; it clearly stated that both faculty physicians and resident physicians are not employees, making the distinction between them irrelevant. Furthermore, the evidence did not demonstrate that the plaintiffs relied on any representation by the hospital regarding the physicians' employment status. The circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the hospital was correct and should be affirmed in its entirety.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a specific two-part test for hospital liability under the doctrine of apparent agency in West Virginia, expanding its application beyond the emergency room context. It reflects a modern judicial trend of holding hospitals accountable for the care provided within their facilities, recognizing that patients often rely on the hospital's reputation rather than that of a specific physician. The ruling places a significant burden on hospitals to provide 'meaningful written notice' of a physician's independent contractor status, suggesting that boilerplate or ambiguous disclaimers may be insufficient to shield the hospital from liability. This precedent makes it more difficult for hospitals to obtain summary judgment on apparent agency claims, thereby increasing the likelihood that such questions will be decided by a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Burless v. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc.