Yarbrough v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital
61 N.E.3d 972
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Yarbrough and Goodpaster) allege negligent prenatal care at Erie Family Health Center (Erie) led to their daughter's premature birth; Erie referred patients to Northwestern Memorial Hospital (NMH) for ultrasounds and deliveries.
- Plaintiffs sued NMH (and NMFF) asserting NMH can be vicariously liable under the doctrine of apparent agency for acts of Erie staff even though Erie is an independent, nonparty clinic.
- Evidence adduced: an affiliation agreement between NMH (via Northwestern Memorial Corporation) and Erie, NMH press reports/web content promoting the partnership, NMH board representation at Erie, financial/support contributions from NMH to Erie, Erie’s website referencing NMH, and patient testimony that she chose Erie because she believed it was affiliated with NMH.
- NMH moved for partial summary judgment arguing Gilbert-based apparent-authority liability applies only to acts occurring inside the hospital and that Erie (an independent clinic and nonparty) cannot be the basis for vicarious liability.
- The trial court denied partial summary judgment and certified a Rule 308 question asking whether a hospital may be vicariously liable under Gilbert for acts of employees of an unrelated independent clinic that is not a party.
- The appellate court answered the certified question yes, holding Gilbert can apply outside the hospital and the apparent agent need not be a named defendant; factual disputes remain as to the Gilbert elements so summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gilbert apparent-authority doctrine can apply when alleged negligent care occurred at an independent clinic (not inside hospital) | Gilbert is not limited to "four walls" — if hospital conduct leads patient to rely on hospital for care, hospital can be liable | Gilbert limited to in-hospital care; applying it here would improperly expand doctrine | Court: Gilbert can apply outside the hospital; key inquiry is whether hospital conduct led patient to rely on hospital for care |
| Whether hospital may be vicariously liable for acts of employees of an independent clinic that is not a party to the litigation | Plaintiff need not name the apparent agent; principal alone can be sued where plaintiff relied on principal's holding out | Hospital argues apparent agent must be a party or otherwise liability unfair without the agent as a defendant | Court: No requirement that the apparent agent be named; IPI and precedent permit suing principal alone |
| Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on Gilbert elements (holding out, acquiescence, reasonable reliance) | Evidence (affiliation agreement, marketing, board seats, funding, websites, patient testimony) raises factual disputes for jury on holding out and reliance | NMH argues no holding out/acquiescence, patient sought Erie care and knew Erie was separate; summary judgment appropriate | Court: Material factual disputes exist on Gilbert elements; summary judgment improper here |
| Whether reasonable reliance exists where patient selected Erie but was influenced by hospital reputation/representations | Patient testified she chose Erie because of NMH relationship and expected care/delivery at NMH; reliance on hospital, not a particular physician | NMH: patient sought Erie care, lacked preference for NMH specifically and had no ongoing relationship with hospital staff | Court: Patient testimony creates triable issue on reasonable reliance (reliance on hospital rather than specific physician) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Sycamore Mun. Hosp., 156 Ill. 2d 511 (Ill. 1993) (adopted apparent-authority vicarious liability for hospitals where hospital holds out physician as its own)
- Malanowski v. Jabamoni, 293 Ill. App. 3d 720 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (apparent-authority principles not limited to ER or within hospital "four walls")
- York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr., 222 Ill. 2d 147 (Ill. 2006) (Gilbert's reliance element satisfied where plaintiff relied on hospital reputation rather than a particular physician)
- Spiegelman v. Victory Memorial Hosp., 392 Ill. App. 3d 826 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (hospital promotional materials can be relevant to the objective holding-out inquiry even if not actually seen by the plaintiff)
- Butkiewicz v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., 311 Ill. App. 3d 508 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (distinguishing cases where patient follows personal physician’s direction from reliance on hospital)