Schlotfeldt v. Charter Hospital of Las Vegas
910 P.2d 271 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The existence of an ostensible agency relationship between a hospital and a physician is a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law for the court. Furthermore, evidence of a plaintiff's subsequent medical or psychiatric conditions may be highly probative of their condition at the time of an alleged tort and should not be excluded unless its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.
Facts:
- On March 4, 1989, Debra Schlotfeldt presented herself to Charter Hospital, reporting extreme depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, and uncontrolled gambling.
- Schlotfeldt signed documents for voluntary admission and authorized treatment as ordered by her physician.
- A Charter psychiatrist and another doctor, Anil Batra, M.D., diagnosed Schlotfeldt with major depression and suicidal ideation.
- Dr. Gilíes Desmarais, a doctor with staff privileges but not a Charter employee, also examined Schlotfeldt at the request of a busy Charter psychiatrist and concluded she was a suicide risk.
- Schlotfeldt later requested to leave the hospital, but Dr. Desmarais and Charter staff urged her to stay, citing her suicide risk and the fact her husband was out of town.
- After 66 hours, when her condition improved and her husband returned, Dr. Desmarais allowed Schlotfeldt to leave.
- Following her stay at Charter, Schlotfeldt was hospitalized for her psychiatric condition six additional times.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Schlotfeldt filed a lawsuit against Charter Hospital and Dr. Desmarais in a Nevada district court, alleging false imprisonment.
- Prior to trial, Schlotfeldt withdrew all other claims.
- At trial, the district court excluded evidence of Schlotfeldt's subsequent psychiatric hospitalizations.
- The district court ruled as a matter of law that Charter Hospital was vicariously liable for the acts of Dr. Desmarais.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Schlotfeldt, finding Charter and Desmarais liable for false imprisonment and awarding $50,000 in damages.
- After the verdict, Dr. Desmarais settled with Schlotfeldt.
- Charter Hospital, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court commit reversible error by 1) excluding evidence of a plaintiff's subsequent psychiatric hospitalizations in a false imprisonment case, and 2) determining as a matter of law that an ostensible agency relationship existed between a hospital and a physician with staff privileges?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, J.
Yes, the district court committed reversible error on both grounds. First, the evidence of Schlotfeldt's subsequent hospitalizations was highly probative of her mental state during her time at Charter and directly contradicted her claim that she had no serious psychiatric problems. The district court was manifestly wrong to exclude this evidence, as its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and a limiting instruction could have mitigated any such danger. Second, the existence of an agency relationship is a question of fact for the jury. The district court improperly decided as a matter of law that Charter was vicariously liable for Dr. Desmarais's actions under an ostensible agency theory, when numerous factual questions—such as whether Schlotfeldt reasonably believed Desmarais was a hospital agent—remained for the jury to resolve.
Dissenting - Shearing, J.
No, the district court's judgment should be affirmed. The evidentiary and agency issues are irrelevant because Charter's detention of Schlotfeldt was illegal on its face. Once Schlotfeldt insisted on leaving, her stay became an involuntary commitment, which required Charter to follow strict statutory procedures, including obtaining a physician's certificate for an emergency admission under NRS 433A.170. Charter made no attempt to comply with these legal requirements, providing no legal justification for detaining her and making the hospital liable for false imprisonment regardless of the other issues.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Rose, J.
Yes, in part, and no, in part. The majority is correct that the district court erred by instructing the jury that an agency relationship existed as a matter of law; this was a question of fact that requires a new trial. However, the dissent is correct that the district court properly exercised its discretion under NRS 48.035 to exclude the unfairly prejudicial evidence of Schlotfeldt's subsequent hospitalizations.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies two key principles for Nevada tort law. First, it affirms that the question of ostensible agency in the hospital-physician context is a factual determination for the jury, preventing automatic vicarious liability for hospitals based solely on a patient's interaction with an independent-contractor doctor on hospital premises. This places a higher burden on plaintiffs to prove the elements of apparent authority. Second, the ruling reinforces a preference for the admissibility of relevant evidence, clarifying that subsequent events can be highly probative of a party's condition at an earlier time and should be admitted with a limiting instruction rather than excluded entirely.
Unlock the full brief for Schlotfeldt v. Charter Hospital of Las Vegas