 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Murphy v. Bayhealth2/4/2005
are located at Kent General Hospital and Defendant Dr. Caccese, Jr. referred to himself as a staff radiologist at Kent General Hospital during the course of Plaintiff Robert Murphy's treatment. Dr. Yanez also stated that he was on staff at Kent General Hospital as a neurosurgeon during the time of Plaintiff's treatment in 2001. In fact, Dr. Yanez was the sole neurosurgeon at the hospital for over half of his employment at Kent General Hospital. Dr. Yanez was forced to abide by the policies and procedures of Kent General Hospital which required, among other things, that Defendant Dr. Yanez live within fifteen miles of the hospital and that he be on call for all emergencies.
A basic axiom in agency law is that " f the principal assumes the right to control the time, manner and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract, a master/servant type of agency relationship has been created." The facts of this case seem to indicate that, at the least, there remains some dispute as to whether Defendants Dr. Caccese, Jr. and Dr. Yanez were agents of Kent General Hospital. In any event, not enough specific facts exist about this relationship and the amount of control and direction Defendant Bayhealth exercised over Dr. Yanez or Dr. Caccese to permit a decision on this issue as a matter of law.
Apparent Agency
Plaintiffs have also alleged that Defendants Dr. Yanez and Dr. Caccese were apparent agents of Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Kent General Hospital. While hospitals are generally not liable for the acts of physicians who are independent contractors, there is a recognized exception to this rule. As the court noted in Vanaman v. Milford Memorial Hospital, Inc.:
f it should be found that the Hospital represented that [the doctor] was its servant or other agent in diagnosing and treating plaintiff in its emergency facility, and if it thereby caused [the plaintiff] to justifiably rely upon the care or skill of [the doctor], then it is liable to her for harm caused by any lack of care or skill by [the doctor] just as if he were the Hospital's servant or agent.
Plaintiff Robert Murphy asserts that he relied on the treating physicians at Kent General Hospital without regard to whether those physicians were acting under the authority of the hospital or as independent contractors. In this case, as in Vanaman, it is not clear whether Defendant Kent General Hospital represented to Plaintiff that Defendants Dr. Yanez or Dr. Caccese, Jr. were its servants or agents in treating or diagnosing Plaintiff. Because it is necessary to more closely examine the facts to determine the degree of relationship between Dr. Yanez or Dr. Caccese and Kent General Hospital, judgment as a matter of law is not possible.
CONCLUSION
Determining whether an agency relationship exists between Kent General Hospital and these physicians is primarily a question of fact. Where the question of agency, as in this case, is "critical to the disposition of the case and is dependent upon a reconciliation of the facts, summary judgment must be denied." Because there are still material factual questions in dispute, it is not possible for the Court to rule on the agency relationship as a matter of law. Rather, the finder of fact must be relied upon to make this determination. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore denied. The Court recognizes that Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. has not had a chance to specifically respond after Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend was granted. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. may again raise the issue of agency at a later date if it so wishes.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|