 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Putnam v. Sezgin12/2/2004
depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The court should grant the motion only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Steward v Panek, 251 Mich App 546, 555; 652 NW2d 232 (2002) (citations omitted).]
Reviewing the record de novo, we conclude that summary disposition was appropriate on the vicarious liability claim. In Wilson v Stilwill, 411 Mich 587, 609-610; 309 NW2d 898 (1981), citing Grewe v Mt Clemens General Hosp, 404 Mich 240; 273 NW2d 429 (1978), the Court acknowledged that a hospital may be liable for the acts of medical personnel who are ostensible agents. There may be vicarious liability where a plaintiff looks to the hospital for the treatment and does not merely view the hospital as the "situs" where his physician will treat him. Id. A hospital is not liable, however, for the malpractice of independent contractors. Chapa v St Mary's Hospital, 192 Mich App 29, 33-34; 480 NW2d 590 (1991). In order to prove that a physician is an agent of a defendant hospital, the plaintiff must show that he dealt with the physician with a reasonable belief in the physician's authority as an agent of the hospital, that his belief was generated by an act or neglect on the part of the hospital, and that he was not guilty of negligence. Zdrojewski v Murphy, 254 Mich App 50, 66; 657 NW2d 721 (2002). " n independent relationship between a doctor and a patient that preceded a patient's admission to a hospital precludes a finding of ostensible agency, unless the acts or omissions of the hospital override the impressions created by the pre-existing relationship and create a reasonable belief that the doctor is an agent of the hospital." Id.
Dr. Sezgin's medical records established that Michael Putnam's relationship with Dr. Sezgin predated his admission to the hospital by several months. Sioma's uncontroverted affidavit establishes that Dr. Sezgin was not an employee of Doctors Hospital. Plaintiffs did not allege that Dr. Sezgin or his professional corporation were actual or ostensible agents of the hospital, and they failed to allege any facts that would support such a finding. In fact, they alleged that Dr. Sezgin was an employee of his own professional corporation. In opposing summary disposition, plaintiffs failed to file any affidavits or other evidence indicating that they dealt with Dr. Sezgin with the reasonable belief that he was an agent of the hospital and that their belief was generated by some act or neglect on the part of the hospital. Id. These facts were peculiarly within their knowledge. At the very least, they could have supplied affidavits to attempt to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact may exist. They failed to do so.
Because the record demonstrated that there was no question of fact with respect to vicarious liability, summary disposition of this claim was appropriate.
II.
We also affirm the grant of summary disposition to Doctors Hospital on the direct claims against it. Although the hospital moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), summary disposition was proper under MCR 2.116(C)(7) because suit was not properly commenced against the hospital before the statute of limitations expired. Mouradian v Goldberg, 256 Mich App 566; 664 NW2d 805 (2003). An order granting summary disposition under an incorrect subrule may be reviewed under the correct subrule. Energy Reserves, Inc v Consumers Power Co, 221 Mich App 210, 216; 561 NW2d 854 (1997).
The direct claims against the hospital were for medical malpractice. Crucial to any medical malpractice claim "is whether it is alleged
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|