Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc. case
brief summary
719 N.E.2d 756 (1999)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff alleged that defendant health maintenance organization was vicariously liable for the negligence of its independent-contractor physicians under agency law, under both the doctrines of apparent and implied authority. The apparent authority doctrine imposed vicarious liability on defendant. There was no dispute that the master agreements at bar were unknown to plaintiff, they could not be used to defeat her apparent agency claim.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed; defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its independent-contractor physicians under both the doctrines of apparent authority and implied authority; plaintiff was entitled to trial on both doctrines.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
719 N.E.2d 756 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants appealed the
judgment of the Appellate Court, First District, Cook County
(Illinois) overturning the trial court's award of summary judgment
for defendant health maintenance organization in a medical
malpractice action.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff alleged that defendant health maintenance organization was vicariously liable for the negligence of its independent-contractor physicians under agency law, under both the doctrines of apparent and implied authority. The apparent authority doctrine imposed vicarious liability on defendant. There was no dispute that the master agreements at bar were unknown to plaintiff, they could not be used to defeat her apparent agency claim.
DISCUSSION
- Defendant held itself out to plaintiff as the provider of her health care, without informing her that the care was actually provided by independent contractors.
- Plaintiff had no choice of health plans and was required to obtain primary medical care from one of defendant's primary care physicians.
- There was a reasonable inference that plaintiff relied upon defendant to provide her health care services.
- Plaintiff presented adequate evidence to support a finding that defendant exerted sufficient control over plaintiff's doctors as to negate their status as independent contractors.
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed; defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its independent-contractor physicians under both the doctrines of apparent authority and implied authority; plaintiff was entitled to trial on both doctrines.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment