Macharia v. City of Revere (Summary)

IMMUNITY

Macharia v. City of Revere, No. 2009 10391 RBC (D. Mass. Mar. 7, 2013)

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied an attending emergency room physician’s motion for summary judgment against a patient who sought to hold her liable for providing medical care below the standard of care.

The physician was employed by a hospital that the court had previously found to be a public employer within the meaning of the Massachusetts Torts Claims Act. The physician argued that, as an employee of the hospital, she was a public employee and therefore entitled to immunity under the Act.

Under Massachusetts law, a court determines whether a physician is a public employee by applying the same principles used to determine the existence of a principal-agent relationship.

Thus, the court considered evidence proffered by the physician that indicated that she was in a principal-agent relationship and therefore a public employee, which was: the physician did not treat private patients, nor did she decide which patients she would treat; the physician’s employment contract terms stated that she worked under the direction and control of the hospital and its Chief of Emergency; and the physician did not bill her patients directly, nor was her pay from the hospital directly tied to her billings.

The court noted that courts tend to conclude that residents, not attending physicians, are servants of hospitals.  Also, the court found that although the physician’s pay was not directly tied to her billings, her compensation did include a component based upon her productivity. Finally, and most significantly, the court concluded that the physician had failed to provide evidence that at the time of the alleged negligence, she did not exercise her own discretion and independent medical judgment. Accordingly, the court concluded that a question of fact existed as to whether the physician was a public employee, and it denied the physician’s motion for summary judgment.