Walker v. Sonora Reg’l Med. Ctr. (Summary)

AGENCY; VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Walker v. Sonora Reg’l Med. Ctr., F060420 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court’s granting of a hospital’s motion for summary judgment against a mother, father, and infant daughter’s claims that the hospital breached its duty by not directly disclosing or having policies in place to ensure disclosure of prenatal cystic fibrosis screening results that had been ordered by the mother’s physician. Furthermore, in its affirmation of the lower court’s summary judgment holding, the court of appeal affirmed the lower court’s holding that the hospital was not vicariously liable for the physician’s conduct under a theory of ostensible agency.

The mother obtained prenatal care from a physician who was an independent contractor with a hospital. At the physician’s suggestion, the mother underwent a cystic fibrosis screening at the local hospital’s outpatient laboratory. Upon receiving the results from the screening, the lab transmitted the results to the mother’s physician, who failed to notify her of the affirmative result. The mother then had a child who was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

The court of appeal reached four central conclusions. First, it concluded that the hospital did not have a duty to inform the mother of the lab results because state and federal statutes only permitted the hospital lab to notify the mother’s physician of the results. Second, the court concluded that since the hospital did not have a duty to directly notify the mother of her lab results, it did not have a duty to invoke policies and procedures to ensure delivery of lab results to patients. Third, the hospital’s reformatted lab result form did not play a substantial role in the physician’s failure to disclose the lab results to the mother.

Finally, the mother had no reasonable basis to believe that the physician’s services were part of the hospital’s services to her because she (i) was not treated by her physician at the hospital, (ii) failed to present evidence that the hospital indicated that the physician was its agent or employee, and (iii) signed a form acknowledging that the physician was an independent contractor. The court of appeal affirmed the lower court’s granting of the hospital’s motion for summary judgment.