Laster v. Henry Ford Health System
316 Mich. App. 726
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff presented to Henry Ford Hospital ER with suspected appendicitis; on-call surgeon Dr. John Lim (employed by Surgical Associates of Macomb, P.L.C.) performed appendectomy and subsequent surgeries; plaintiff alleges malpractice in diagnosis/treatment of bowel perforation.
- Dr. Lim was not paid by or employed by Henry Ford; he billed patients directly and maintained privileges at multiple hospitals.
- Henry Ford required on-call physicians to follow an “Unattended Call” policy imposing scheduling, response-time, patient-acceptance, and some consult/coverage obligations, but did not prescribe diagnostic or treatment methods.
- Plaintiff signed a consent acknowledging her physician was not a hospital employee; trial court granted summary disposition to Henry Ford on ostensible agency but denied it on actual-agency (control) grounds based on the on-call policy.
- Henry Ford appealed the denial on actual-agency; plaintiff did not cross-appeal the ostensible-agency dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held Henry Ford was entitled to summary disposition on actual agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henry Ford is vicariously liable under Michigan's control test (actual agency) for Dr. Lim's malpractice | On-call policy imposes substantial control (scheduling, response times, patient assignment) making Dr. Lim an agent | Hospital did not control the method or manner of diagnosis/treatment; control was logistical/administrative only, so Dr. Lim remained an independent contractor | Reversed trial court: no genuine issue of material fact; hospital lacked control over methods of medical practice, so no actual agency (summary disposition for defendant) |
| Whether Henry Ford is liable under ostensible agency | Hospital’s conduct and on-call context led plaintiff to reasonably believe Dr. Lim was hospital employee | Plaintiff signed written acknowledgment that physician was not hospital employee; no evidence hospital represented otherwise | Trial court granted summary disposition for Henry Ford on ostensible-agency; not reviewed on appeal (plaintiff did not cross-appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Grewe v. Mt. Clemens Gen. Hosp., 404 Mich. 240 (1978) (hospitals not vicariously liable for independent contractor physicians absent assumed control)
- Campbell v. Kovich, 273 Mich. App. 227 (2006) (test focuses on control over the method of work to distinguish employee from independent contractor)
- Samodai v. Chrysler Corp., 178 Mich. App. 252 (1989) (contractual oversight/safety inspections insufficient to prove control over actual work methods)
- Utley v. Taylor & Gaskin, Inc., 305 Mich. 561 (1943) (independent contractor defined by control over methods and means)
- Bailey v. Schaaf, 304 Mich. App. 324 (2014) (vicarious liability imputes responsibility for agent’s negligence; plaintiff need only prove agent’s negligence)
- Hamed v. Wayne County, 490 Mich. 1 (2011) (general principles of respondeat superior and employer liability)
- Rogers v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 466 Mich. 645 (2002) (rationales for vicarious liability include risk distribution and employer incentives to reduce tortious conduct)