447 S.W.3d 701
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Crystal Jefferson had three CT scans at Missouri Baptist Medical Center (MBMC) between Oct 2005 and Jan 2006; radiologist Dr. Mosher reported resolution of fluid but did not note a persistent soft-tissue mass.
- Two years later the mass was diagnosed as stage‑IV colon cancer; Jefferson died in 2011.
- Plaintiffs (Collin and Courtney Jefferson, by their father) sued MBMC and others alleging Dr. Mosher’s negligent CT interpretation caused delayed diagnosis.
- MBMC moved for summary judgment under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.210.2(3), arguing the statute bars liability for acts of non‑employees and Dr. Mosher was not its employee but worked for Midwest Radiological Associates.
- Trial court granted summary judgment (record silent as to reasoning); Jeffersons appealed, arguing the court misdefined “employee.”
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and held the trial court erred by applying the statutory definition of “physician employee” instead of the common‑law agency/employee test; case remanded for application of the proper test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 538.210.2(3) bars the claim because Dr. Mosher was not MBMC’s "employee" | "Employee" should be defined by common‑law/Restatement agency principles (focus on right to control); MBMC exercised significant control so factual dispute exists | "Employee" in § 538.210.2(3) must be the statute’s defined term "physician employee" (§ 538.205(9)); Dr. Mosher does not meet that statutory definition, so bar applies as a matter of law | Court held § 538.210.2(3) uses the plain unqualified term "employee," not the distinct defined term "physician employee;" the proper test is the common‑law/right‑to‑control agency test; summary judgment reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Manner v. Schiermeier, 393 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid‑Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standards and appellate review)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (movant must show no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Scott v. SSM Healthcare St. Louis, 70 S.W.3d 560 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002) (hospital‑physician control inquiry; physician independent judgment does not preclude employment finding)
- Barnes v. Real Silk Hosiery Mills, 108 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1937) (use of Restatement of Agency to determine employment relationship)
- Cook v. Newman, 142 S.W.3d 880 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004) (legislative use of different terms indicates distinct meanings)
- Armco Steel v. Kansas City, 883 S.W.2d 3 (Mo. banc 1994) (presumption that use of different statutory terms is intentional)
- Loren Cook Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 414 S.W.3d 451 (Mo. banc 2013) (courts cannot insert omitted statutory language)