Thomas v. Tenet Healthsystem Gb, Inc.
340 Ga. App. 78
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2012 Thomas was brought to Atlanta Medical Center (AMC) after a car accident; Dr. Robin Lowman (ER) ordered a cervical CT which Dr. Clifford Grossman read remotely.
- Grossman reported no cervical fracture; Lowman ordered removal of Thomas’s cervical collar and discharge; the collar was removed by an AMC nurse.
- Thomas was later found to have a displaced cervical fracture causing spinal cord compression and quadriplegia after the collar removal.
- Thomas sued Lowman and Grossman for professional negligence and AMC for imputed liability, alleging the doctors were AMC employees/agents and joint venturers with AMC.
- AMC moved for summary judgment; the trial court found both physicians were independent contractors (based on contracts between AMC and physician groups) and that AMC was not a joint venturer; partial summary judgment was entered and Thomas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas’s Argument | AMC’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lowman and Grossman were AMC employees/agents or independent contractors under OCGA § 51-2-5.1(f) | The doctors were AMC’s employees/agents (imputing liability) | Contracts label physicians (via their groups) as independent contractors; thus no vicarious liability | Trial court erred to rely on contracts between AMC and physician groups; those contracts don’t satisfy § 51-2-5.1(f); vacated and remanded for statutory factor analysis under § 51-2-5.1(g) |
| Whether AMC and the physician defendants were joint venturers | AMC and physician groups had mutual-operation provisions creating joint venture/right of mutual control | Contract provisions do not show a right of mutual control over how physicians performed services | Court affirmed that AMC was not a joint venturer with the groups; but summary judgment as to joint venture with the individual physicians was vacated for lack of notice and opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Rubin v. Cello Corp., 235 Ga. App. 250 (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Zeller v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Atlanta, 220 Ga. App. 843 (summary judgment viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)
- In the Interest of L.T., 325 Ga. App. 590 (statutory interpretation presumption)
- Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170 (statutory construction and plain-meaning rule)
- Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. v. McRae, 292 Ga. 243 (statutory construction precedent)
- Kelleher v. Pain Care of Georgia, Inc., 246 Ga. App. 619 (joint venture requires right of mutual control)
- Kitchens v. Brusman, 280 Ga. App. 163 (hospital lacked right of mutual control over physicians’ manner of providing services)
- McClendon v. 1152 Spring Street Assocs.-Georgia, Ltd. III, 225 Ga. App. 333 (court may not grant summary judgment sua sponte without notice and opportunity to respond)