Ramirez v. Long Beach Mem’l Med. Ctr. (Summary)
CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE/APPARENT AGENCY
Ramirez v. Long Beach Mem’l Med. Ctr., No. B239125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. Mar. 20, 2013)
A California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to a hospital in a wrongful death action involving a patient with a gunshot wound who presented to the emergency department and later died during surgery. The patient’s mother had signed a printed form entitled “Conditions of Admission,” which included a provision disclaiming any agency relationship between the hospital and its physicians, independent contractors, in an effort to limit liability. Due to a delay in the arrival of a vascular surgeon, the patient had waited three hours before he went to the operating room and then died during the surgery.
The patient’s family sued the hospital for wrongful death, claiming that he unnecessarily bled to death. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital as to the claims against the hospital that were based on the actions of its physicians, finding there to be a lack of an agency relationship with the physicians on the basis of the Conditions of Admission form which had disclaimed such a relationship. The patient’s family appealed.
On appeal, the court found that whether the Conditions of Admission form signed by the patient’s mother was enforceable so as to preclude the family’s wrongful death claims against the hospital for the acts of the physicians was a question of fact and was not appropriate for summary judgment. Even though the physicians were independent contractors, for which the hospital does not typically have liability, if the hospital acted in such a manner so as to make a reasonable person believe that the physicians were its agents and the patient relied on that representation, then the hospital could still be liable for their acts.
In this case, the court found that in the absence of evidence showing that the patient authorized his mother to act on his behalf, whether the patient acknowledged the non-agent status of the physicians was a question of fact. The court also found that, under the stressful circumstances, the patient’s mother may not have freely consented to the non-agency relationship between the hospital and its physicians. Therefore, the court held that such a form, where it was not signed by the patient or by an authorized agent of the patient, was insufficient to immunize the hospital from liability for the acts of its physicians and that summary judgment was not appropriate with respect to the hospital’s liability.