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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT