Mizyed v. Palos Community Hospital, 58 N.E.3d 102

Plaintiff Saleh Mizyed, an Arabic‑speaking, illiterate patient, was treated at Palos Community Hospital after emergency presentation for cardiac issues and underwent CABG and subsequent procedures in January 2009.
Mizyed signed multiple English‑language hospital consent forms (emergency treatment, admission, catheterization, operation, PICC), each containing a clear disclaimer that physicians "are independent medical staff physicians and not employees or agents of Palos Community Hospital."
Mizyed testified he relied on his adult daughter, Nadera (who reads English), to explain the forms and sometimes encouraged him to sign; neither he nor his daughter asked hospital staff for translation or clarification about physician employment status.
After a PICC line, Mizyed developed a line‑related infection; he alleges negligent diagnosis/treatment and premature discharge by his attending physician, Dr. Kanashiro, and sued Palos on a vicarious‑liability theory based on apparent agency.
At summary judgment, Palos argued Dr. Kanashiro was an independent contractor and that the signed consents defeated any claim of "holding out;" the trial court granted Palos summary judgment.
On appeal, Mizyed limited his claim to apparent agency, arguing (inter alia) his inability to read English prevented actual notice of the disclaimer; the appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Palos.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Palos is vicariously liable under apparent agency for negligence of non‑employee physician	Mizyed argued he lacked actual understanding of English consent forms and thus lacked notice that treating physicians were independent contractors; his limited English/illiteracy creates a triable issue	Palos argued unambiguous English disclaimers in multiple signed consent forms put Mizyed on constructive notice that physicians were independent contractors; no evidence Palos held physician out as its agent	Court held the signed, explicit disclaimers (and daughter’s review) provided at least constructive notice, defeating the "holding out" element and affirming summary judgment

Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511 (1993) (establishes three‑part test for hospital apparent‑agency liability)
York v. Rush‑Presbyterian‑St. Luke’s Medical Center, 222 Ill. 2d 147 (2006) (applies Gilbert in medical malpractice context; hospital liable only if patient does not know/should not know physician is independent contractor)
Schroeder v. Northwest Community Hospital, 371 Ill. App. 3d 584 (2006) (consent form ambiguity can create triable issue on apparent agency)
Spiegelman v. Victory Memorial Hospital, 392 Ill. App. 3d 826 (2009) (multipart consent form produced jury verdict where language created confusion about which providers were hospital employees)
Wallace v. Alexian Brothers Medical Center, 389 Ill. App. 3d 1081 (2009) (affirming summary judgment where consent form clearly stated physicians were independent contractors)
Churkey v. Rustia, 329 Ill. App. 3d 239 (2002) (signed consent form plus lack of other evidence of "holding out" supports judgment for hospital)
James v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, 299 Ill. App. 3d 627 (1998) (upholding summary judgment where consent form discloses physicians are independent practitioners)
Hernandez v. Department of Labor, 83 Ill. 2d 512 (1981) (English‑only notice held effective against non‑English speaker absent other grounds)
Shulman v. Moser, 284 Ill. 134 (1918) (illiteracy does not excuse a signer from being charged with knowledge of a document’s contents)