Brown v. Gupta — Dec. 2015 (Summary)

OSTENSIBLE AGENCY

Brown v. Gupta
Docket No. 322676 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2015)

The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed and remanded a lower court’s order which denied a hospital’s motion for summary disposition. Following colon resection surgery, a patient experienced great pain and underwent exploratory surgery which revealed that she had a perforated colon. The patient suffered from other complications and sued the surgeon who performed the surgery; the patient also sued the hospital.

The hospital argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition because it was not liable for the physician’s negligence under the theory of ostensible agency. The court was persuaded that the surgeon was an independent contractor who merely used the hospital’s facilities to render treatment to his patients. In dismissing the complaint against the hospital, the court found that there was inadequate evidence that the hospital took any action or made any representation that led the patient to reasonably believe that the surgeon was an agent of the hospital.