Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc.
714 N.E.2d 142, 1999 Ind. LEXIS 411, 1999 WL 512010 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor physician under the doctrine of apparent or ostensible agency if the hospital holds itself out as the provider of care and the patient reasonably believes the services are being rendered by the hospital or its employees, with reliance presumed absent meaningful notice to the patient.
Facts:
- Diana Sword, who lives in southern Indiana, made arrangements through her obstetrician's office to deliver her first child at Norton's Children's Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky, on April 24, 1991.
- Sword consulted with her obstetrician about using an epidural, who recommended it and stated he used them frequently, and Sword decided to have the procedure but did not know in advance who would administer it.
- Norton's Children's Hospital aggressively marketed its Women's Pavilion, advertising it as 'the most technically sophisticated birthplace in the region' and highlighting the 'full availability of a special anesthesiology team, experienced and dedicated exclusively to OB patients' who 'are experts in administering continuous epidural anesthesia.'
- During Sword's labor, an anesthesiologist came into her room to explain the epidural procedure but was then called out.
- A second anesthesiologist, Dr. Luna, who was an independent contractor, then entered Sword's room to administer the epidural.
- Dr. Luna first inserted the epidural tubing near the top of Sword's neck, then removed it and reinserted it in her lower back because 'it did not take.'
- Soon after delivery, Sword began experiencing headaches every four to six weeks, sensitivity to light and sound, and numbness in her back where the second epidural was administered.
- Sword alleges that these symptoms are a result of Dr. Luna’s negligent placement of the epidural tubing.
Procedural Posture:
- Diana Sword sued Norton’s Children’s Hospital (Norton) in the Clark Circuit Court (trial court of first instance) for medical malpractice.
- Norton filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Norton’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Indiana law applied, that Norton could not be held liable for the asserted negligence of an independent contractor physician as a matter of law, and that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to causation.
- Sword appealed the trial court’s decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that under the doctrine of apparent or ostensible agency, Norton could be held liable for the alleged negligence of its independent contractor physician, and that the record established material issues of fact on both the question of apparent agency and causation.
- Norton then filed a petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court (highest court).
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 hospital have vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of an independent contractor physician under the doctrine of apparent or ostensible agency, and if so, are there genuine issues of material fact regarding its application and causation in this case?
Opinions:
Majority - Selby, J.
Yes, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of an independent contractor physician under the doctrine of apparent or ostensible agency, and yes, there are genuine issues of material fact as to both the existence of an apparent agency relationship and causation. The Court first affirmed the trial court's decision that Indiana law applies to the substantive issues, as Sword failed to provide reasonable notice to Norton that Kentucky law should be applied, thereby waiving the choice of law issue. The Court then expressly adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts section 429 for determining apparent or ostensible agency in the specific context of a hospital setting. This formulation requires the trier of fact to focus on the reasonableness of the patient’s belief that the hospital or its employees were rendering health care, considering the totality of the circumstances. A hospital will be deemed to have held itself out as the provider of care unless it gives meaningful written notice to the patient, acknowledged at the time of admission, stating that it is not the provider of care and that the care is provided by an independent contractor physician not subject to the hospital's control. In some circumstances, such as a medical emergency, written notice may not suffice if the patient had an inadequate opportunity for an informed choice. As to patient reliance, it is presumed if the hospital failed to give meaningful notice, the patient has no special knowledge regarding the arrangement the hospital has made with its physicians, and there is no reason the patient should have known of these employment relationships. Applying this test to the facts, the Court found nothing in the record indicating that Norton gave Sword notice of Dr. Luna's independent contractor status. Furthermore, Sword did not select her anesthesiologist and had no special knowledge of Norton’s employment arrangements, while Norton actively promoted itself through extensive advertising as a full-service obstetric hospital. These facts create genuine issues of material fact as to whether Dr. Luna was an apparent agent of Norton. Regarding causation, the Court found that the affidavits from Dr. Davidson (opining that Dr. Luna's care fell below the standard of care) and Dr. Milan (stating Sword's symptoms were 'consistent with' spinal fluid loss from the epidural insertion in the cervical region) were sufficient to create a material issue of fact for a jury to infer causation. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both apparent agency and causation.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Indiana's jurisprudence concerning hospital liability for the actions of independent contractor physicians. By adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 429, the Indiana Supreme Court expanded the grounds upon which hospitals can be held vicariously liable, moving away from a traditional focus solely on direct employment relationships. The ruling places a substantial burden on hospitals to ensure clear and meaningful communication to patients regarding the employment status of healthcare providers on their premises, especially in departments where patients typically do not choose their own physicians. This change is likely to encourage greater transparency in hospital-physician relationships and may lead to hospitals exercising more oversight over independent contractors to mitigate potential liability, ultimately potentially enhancing patient safety and increasing avenues for patient recourse in medical malpractice cases.
