Linda Beard v. James William Branson, M2014-01770-COA-R3-CV

Ruth Hartley underwent colon surgery at Trinity Hospital and developed postoperative complications; a CT scan on Sept. 27, 2004 was later found to show signs of bowel perforation.
The CT was read by Dr. Stanley Anderson, a radiologist in a private practice group under contract with Trinity; Dr. Branson (the surgeon) disagreed with Anderson’s reading and took no immediate action.
The CT and related radiology notes were not produced by Trinity for ~3 years; when produced, experts concluded Dr. Anderson failed to report free intraperitoneal air. Plaintiff thus could not add Dr. Anderson as a defendant within the statute of repose.
Plaintiff sought partial summary judgment that Dr. Anderson was Trinity’s apparent agent (and estoppel against Trinity’s denial of vicarious liability) because Trinity’s conduct led a reasonable patient to believe the hospital provided the radiology service.
Trial jury awarded $750,000 and apportioned fault: Trinity 50%, Branson 40%, Anderson 10%; Trinity was held vicariously liable for Anderson’s 10%. Trial court also awarded discretionary costs of $68,945.85.
On appeal the Tennessee Supreme Court resolved the timeliness issue in Plaintiff’s favor and remanded; this opinion addresses (1) whether Dr. Anderson was Trinity’s apparent agent and (2) whether discretionary costs were properly awarded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dr. Anderson was Trinity’s apparent agent (vicarious liability)	Hospital’s actions (CT on premises, hospital staff performed/handled scan, report bore hospital info, patient did not select radiologist) created an objectively reasonable belief that Trinity provided the radiology service	Anderson was an independent contractor; no direct evidence the decedent or spouse looked to Trinity for radiology services; consent language disclaimed agency so Plaintiff cannot meet Boren factors	Affirmed: summary judgment for Plaintiff on apparent agency; court found Boren factors satisfied (hospital held out services; patient looked to hospital; reasonable belief existed; disclaimer was not meaningful)
Whether discretionary costs ($68,945.85) should be vacated	N/A (Plaintiff prevailed; costs awarded below)	Trinity argued costs should be set aside if judgment against it were reversed	Affirmed: underlying judgment against Trinity was affirmed, so discretionary costs award stood; trial court did not abuse discretion

Boren v. Weeks, 251 S.W.3d 426 (Tenn. 2008) (three-part test for hospital apparent agency; patient reliance may be inferred)
White v. Methodist Hosp. S., 844 S.W.2d 642 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (apparent agency can be inferred when patient does not choose provider and service is offered by hospital)
Edmonds v. Chamberlain Mem. Hosp., 629 S.W.2d 28 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (hospital operation and patient reliance support agency inference)
Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (standards and limits for appellate review of discretionary decisions)