Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital
156 Ill.2d 511, 622 N.E.2d 788, 190 Ill. Dec. 758 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician who is an independent contractor under the doctrine of apparent authority if the hospital holds itself out as a provider of care and the patient justifiably relies on that representation.
Facts:
- Sycamore Municipal Hospital considered its active staff physicians, including Dr. Irving Frank, to be independent contractors and did not pay their salaries, control their medical decisions, or provide benefits.
- The hospital operated its own emergency room, employed the nurses, owned the equipment, and had a quality assurance committee that reviewed treatment provided there.
- The hospital did not advise emergency room patients that the physicians treating them were independent contractors rather than hospital employees.
- On April 8, 1981, Jack Gilbert was taken by ambulance to the hospital's emergency room for chest and arm pain.
- Upon arrival, Gilbert signed a hospital-provided consent form stating that treatment would be "performed by physicians and employees of the hospital."
- Gilbert asked for a specific physician, but Dr. Frank, who was covering the emergency room and had never met Gilbert, responded and treated him.
- Dr. Frank conducted tests, diagnosed Gilbert with a muscle strain, prescribed pain medication, and discharged him.
- Later that evening, Gilbert died from a myocardial infarction.
Procedural Posture:
- Dimple Gilbert, as special administrator of her deceased husband's estate, filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Frank and Sycamore Municipal Hospital in the circuit court of De Kalb County, the trial court.
- Gilbert settled her claim with Dr. Frank, reserving her right to proceed against the hospital.
- The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held vicariously liable because Dr. Frank was an independent contractor, not an employee.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital.
- Gilbert, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the hospital, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois granted Gilbert's petition for leave to appeal.
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 the doctrine of apparent authority for the negligence of an independent-contractor physician providing care in its emergency room?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Freeman
Yes. A hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an independent-contractor physician under the doctrine of apparent authority. The court recognized two realities of modern hospital care: 1) hospitals hold themselves out to the public as full-service healthcare providers, and 2) patients generally rely on the hospital's reputation and assume its emergency room physicians are employees unless notified otherwise. Liability attaches if the patient justifiably relies on the hospital's representations. The court established a three-part test for apparent authority: (1) the hospital acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the physician was an employee or agent; (2) where the agent's acts create the appearance of authority, the hospital knew of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff relied upon the hospital, not a specific physician, to provide care. Here, because the hospital did not inform patients of the physicians' independent status and the consent form implied an employment relationship, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding apparent authority, making summary judgment for the hospital inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded hospital liability in Illinois by applying the agency doctrine of apparent authority to the hospital-physician relationship. It aligned Illinois with a growing national trend that acknowledges how modern hospitals market themselves and what patients reasonably expect when seeking emergency care. The ruling places an affirmative burden on hospitals to clearly and explicitly inform patients about the independent contractor status of their physicians if they wish to avoid vicarious liability. This case serves as a key precedent for holding institutions accountable for the quality of care provided under their brand, even when the direct provider is not a formal employee.
