ILNews

Malpractice complaint hinges on claim of apparent agency

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Wednesday that a Bartholomew Superior judge did not err in denying partial summary judgment on the issue of whether two physicians working as independent contractors were the apparent agents of Columbus Regional Hospital.

The employment status of Drs. Jiangming Xu and Donald Harris is key to the medical malpractice complaint filed by Clyde Amburgey following the death of his wife, Moreen. She was admitted to the hospital for revision of her intrathecal pump catheter. While at the hospital after the surgery, she had a seizure and died. Xu was on call for anesthesia and responded to the page concerning Moreen. He consulted with Harris. Both men were not employees of Columbus Regional.

Amburgey wasn’t informed that any care provided to his wife was performed by independent contractors or people not employed by the hospital. He filed a medical malpractice complaint against the hospital, claiming that the two doctors should be deemed as apparent agents of the hospital. He argued on his motion for partial summary judgment that it didn’t matter whether they were independent contractors, but whether the hospital actually informed the Amburgeys about the doctors’ employment status.

The hospital argued that because Amburgey didn’t name Xu or Harris in his complaint and the statute of limitations on any claims against them had run out, there could be no basis for liability against the hospital. The trial court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the claim of apparent agency and denied Amburgey’s motion for partial summary judgment.

The Indiana Trial Lawyers Association filed an amicus brief, arguing the hospital is “imploring this court to create new law.” Its brief said that even when an agent isn’t named in a lawsuit, the agent may still be found to have been negligent, and that is sufficient to make the principal vicariously liable.

The Court of Appeals relied on Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 147-153 (Ind. 1999), Restatement (Second) of Agency Section 429, and caselaw from other states to affirm the trial court. Indiana hasn’t addressed this specific issue, but other states have concluded that the running of a statute of limitations with respect to a physician doesn’t preclude a complaint against a hospital on the theory of vicarious liability and apparent authority, Judge Elaine Brown wrote in Columbus Regional Hospital v. Clyde Amburgey, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Moreen Amburgey, 03A01-1110-CT-450.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT