 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce v. Marshall County Public Hospital District Corporation2/7/2003
hospital," the Court held that "the operation of a hospital emergency room open to the public, where the public comes expecting medical care to be provided through normal operating procedures within the hospital, falls within the limits for application of the principles of ostensible agency and apparent authority." Id.at 258.
In reviewing the facts of this case, we believe that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the consent to treat form gave Bruce sufficient notice that a physician who was not employed by MCH would be reading and interpreting the CT scan. Bruce testified in her deposition that she brought Nicole to MCH so that MCH could perform the diagnostic CT scan. She did not know that a physician would be interpreting the scan, and did not know that Dr. Wilson read the scan until after Nicole's death.
We believe that the language of the form was sufficiently ambiguous so as to allow the issue to go to the jury. The first sentence of the form reads as follows: Knowing that the PATIENT may have a condition requiring hospitalization and medical treatment, I do hereby voluntarily consent to routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and hospital care for the PATIENT by the HOSPITAL, the patient's physician, and their assistants and assignees.
The next paragraph contains language designed to shield the hospital from liability for the negligence of staff physicians. The first sentence provides:
I understand that all of the physicians on the staff of this hospital, including the attending physician(s), are not employees or agents of the hospital but rather, are independent contractors who have been granted the privilege of using its facilities for the care and treatment of their patients.
In this case, Nicole was undergoing a diagnostic CT scan that was performed by the hospital. A jury could reasonably conclude that the language of the second paragraph does not apply in those situations as it did not specifically include radiologists who interpret studies such as CT scans. Therefore, MCH may still be found liable under an ostensible agency claim.
For the foregoing reasons, the January 30, 2002, summary judgment is reversed to the extent that it dismisses the ostensible agency claim against MCH and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|