Estate of Keith Wiegand v. Hiroshi Yamasaki Md
334598
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Decedent presented to St. John Hospital ER with shortness of breath, was admitted, and treated by three physicians who were not hospital employees.
- Estate sued St. John for vicarious liability, alleging ostensible agency based on the doctors’ treatment at the hospital.
- St. John moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing plaintiff produced no evidence of ostensible agency; trial court denied the motion.
- At admission decedent had no established relationship with the treating doctors; his wife signed a consent-to-treat form disclosing some doctors were independent contractors.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether evidence created a genuine issue of material fact on ostensible agency and considered the record in the light most favorable to the estate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ostensible agency existed such that St. John is vicariously liable for physicians’ negligence | Estate: decedent looked to hospital for treatment and thus reasonably believed treating physicians were hospital agents | St. John: no evidence hospital made any representations or took actions that would reasonably induce belief doctors were its agents | Reversed: no genuine issue of material fact — plaintiff failed to show any hospital action or representation creating reasonable belief of agency |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1 (review standard for de novo consideration of MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 491 Mich 200 (MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests factual sufficiency)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (court must view evidence favorably to nonmoving party on summary disposition)
- Laster v. Henry Ford Health Sys., 316 Mich App 726 (respondeat superior vs. independent contractor rule for hospitals)
- Grewe v. Mount Clemens Gen. Hosp., 404 Mich 240 (critical test: whether patient looked to hospital for treatment versus hospital as situs)
- VanStelle v. Macaskill, 255 Mich App 1 (ostensible agency requires some hospital act or representation creating reasonable belief)
- Chapa v. St. Mary's Hosp. of Saginaw, 192 Mich App 29 (three-element formulation for ostensible agency and emphasis on hospital conduct)
- Bennett v. Detroit Police Chief, 274 Mich App 307 (mere possibility or promise insufficient at summary disposition)
- Sasseen v. Community Hosp. Foundation, 159 Mich App 231 (hospital must do something to induce reasonable belief of agency)