Roessler v. Novak
858 So.2d 1158 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital may be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of apparent agency for the negligence of an independent contractor physician if the hospital's actions lead a patient to reasonably believe the physician is an agent of the hospital, and the patient relies on the hospital to provide the necessary medical services.
Facts:
- Klaus Roessler was diagnosed with a perforated viscus and pneumonia at a walk-in clinic.
- The clinic physician immediately arranged for Roessler to go to Sarasota Memorial Hospital's emergency room for surgical evaluation.
- Roessler went directly to Sarasota Memorial's ER and was admitted as an inpatient.
- The following day, scans of Roessler's abdomen were taken in the hospital's radiology department.
- Dr. Richard J. Lichtenstein, the radiologist on duty at the hospital, was assigned to analyze and interpret the scans.
- Roessler did not know Dr. Lichtenstein and did not select him; he accepted the physician provided by the hospital.
- Dr. Lichtenstein was an employee of a professional association that had an exclusive contract to provide all radiological services at Sarasota Memorial.
- Six days after admission, Roessler underwent surgery and subsequently developed severe, life-altering complications.
Procedural Posture:
- Klaus Roessler sued Sarasota Memorial Hospital in a Florida trial court for medical malpractice based on a theory of vicarious liability.
- Sarasota Memorial filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable because the radiologist, Dr. Lichtenstein, was an independent contractor.
- The trial court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment, entering a final judgment in favor of Sarasota Memorial on that claim.
- Klaus Roessler, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a genuine issue of material fact exist regarding a hospital's vicarious liability under an apparent agency theory for the alleged negligence of an independent contractor radiologist when the hospital provides the radiologist's services to an inpatient who has no role in selecting the physician?
Opinions:
Majority - Salcines, J.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists, making summary judgment improper. A hospital may be held vicariously liable for the acts of an independent contractor physician under the doctrine of apparent agency. This doctrine applies when a principal (the hospital) creates the appearance that an individual (the doctor) is its agent. Here, Sarasota Memorial held itself out as a provider of radiological services by having a radiology department on its grounds and contracting for exclusive, 24/7 coverage. Roessler went to the hospital for care, not to a specific radiologist, and the hospital assigned Dr. Lichtenstein to him. By accepting the physician provided by the hospital without attempting to secure his own specialist, Roessler created a question of fact for the jury as to whether the hospital's actions created an apparent agency relationship.
Concurring - Altenbernd, C.J.
Yes. While existing precedent compels this result, the doctrine of apparent agency is an inefficient and unpredictable legal framework for determining a hospital's vicarious liability. This case-specific, fact-intensive inquiry creates avoidable litigation and inconsistent outcomes. A better approach would be to adopt a theory of nondelegable duty, where hospitals are vicariously liable for essential services like radiology and emergency care as a matter of law. Patients cannot realistically shop for these services within a hospital, and modern hospitals market themselves as comprehensive providers of quality care, making it reasonable to hold them directly responsible for the competency of these core functions.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the application of apparent agency in the hospital context, preventing hospitals from using independent contractor arrangements to shield themselves from liability for core medical services. The decision emphasizes that the key inquiry is whether the hospital holds itself out as the provider of the service, leading the patient to rely on the institution rather than a specific physician. The influential concurring opinion is significant for its critique of the apparent agency doctrine's unpredictability and its advocacy for a nondelegable duty standard, signaling a potential future shift in jurisprudence toward broader, more certain hospital liability.
Unlock the full brief for Roessler v. Novak