Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mary FINNIN, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ST. BARNABAS HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant. [And A Third-Party Action].
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), entered May 17, 2002, which, in an action for pain and suffering and wrongful death, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant hospital's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
An issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff's decedent reasonably believed that the physician who treated him at defendant hospital was provided by defendant or was otherwise acting on its behalf. If so, defendant can be held vicariously liable for the physician's malpractice even if defendant did not have any “control in fact” over him (see Hill v. St. Clare's Hosp., 67 N.Y.2d 72, 79, 81, 499 N.Y.S.2d 904, 490 N.E.2d 823). This issue of “apparent or ostensible agency” (id. at 79, 499 N.Y.S.2d 904, 490 N.E.2d 823) is raised by plaintiff's evidence that her decedent's two visits to defendant's emergency room were at the direction of his HIP HMO's emergency line, not his HMO's primary care physician, and that neither she nor he ever sought treatment from a particular physician while he was at the hospital (see Shafran v. St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 264 A.D.2d 553, 558, 694 N.Y.S.2d 642, citing Mduba v. Benedictine Hosp., 52 A.D.2d 450, 453, 384 N.Y.S.2d 527; Noble v. Porter, 188 A.D.2d 1066, 1066-1067, 591 N.Y.S.2d 669, also citing Mduba ). Defendant's evidence that the treating physician was a HIP attending physician with privileges at its hospital does not suffice to show its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. There is no evidence that plaintiff or her decedent were acquainted with the treating physician before the decedent's admission to defendant hospital, were ever advised of his purported affiliation with the decedent's primary care physician, or were told to notify him if problems persisted after the decedent's first discharge. The foregoing should not be understood as a finding that defendant exercised no control in fact over the treating physician (cf. Mduba, 52 A.D.2d at 452, 384 N.Y.S.2d 527).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 24, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)