Yarbrough v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital
2016 IL App (1st) 141585
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Yarbrough sought free pregnancy testing at Erie Family Health Center (Erie), was told she would likely receive ultrasounds and deliver at Northwestern Memorial Hospital (NMH), and continued prenatal care at Erie. A 20-week ultrasound at NMH was read by an NMFF physician; the child was born prematurely with injuries claimed to result from negligent prenatal care.
- Plaintiffs sued NMH (and NMFF as to a separate claim) alleging NMH is vicariously liable under the doctrine of apparent authority for negligence by Erie clinicians. Erie and its clinicians were not named as defendants.
- Evidence shows a long-standing affiliation between NMH/NMC and Erie: an Affiliation Agreement, NMH financial support, NMH representatives on Erie’s board, cross-promotional materials on both organizations’ websites, and referrals of Erie patients to NMH for specialized services.
- NMH moved for partial summary judgment on the apparent-authority claims; the trial court denied the motion and certified a Rule 308 question asking whether a hospital can be vicariously liable under Gilbert for acts of employees of an unrelated independent clinic not party to the litigation.
- The appellate court, answering the certified question, held that Gilbert may apply beyond the hospital’s ‘‘four walls’’ and that a hospital may be vicariously liable for an independent clinic’s employees even when the apparent agent is not a defendant, provided the plaintiff proves Gilbert’s elements; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Gilbert outside the hospital ("four walls") | Gilbert’s protection applies where hospital conduct led patient to rely on the hospital for care regardless of physical location. | Gilbert is limited to care rendered within hospital (e.g., ER) and should not extend to independent clinics offsite. | Court: Gilbert is not limited to hospital interior; it can apply to offsite independent clinics if elements are met. |
| Whether apparent agent must be a defendant | Not required; hospital can be sued alone for apparent agency (IPI instructions support). | If the apparent agent (Erie) isn’t a party, hospital cannot be held vicariously liable. | Court: Agent need not be named; plaintiff may sue principal alone under apparent agency. |
| Whether plaintiffs met Gilbert elements (holding out/acquiescence) | NMH’s affiliation, financial support, board presence, joint publicity, and websites created factual issues on holding out and acquiescence. | NMH lacked control; Erie is independent, separate facility, and promotional language did not create legal agency. | Court: Resolution involves fact questions; summary judgment inappropriate on certified question—issues for jury. |
| Reasonable reliance by patient | Yarbrough relied on NMH’s reputation and affiliation when choosing Erie; her testimony creates a fact issue on reliance. | Yarbrough sought care from Erie, knew Erie provided services, and expressed no specific hospital preference; no reasonable reliance on NMH. | Court: Plaintiff’s testimony raises a triable issue of fact on reliance under Gilbert. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Sycamore Mun. Hosp., 156 Ill. 2d 511 (Ill. 1993) (establishes three-part apparent-authority test for hospital liability for independent contractors)
- Malanowski v. Jabamoni, 293 Ill. App. 3d 720 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (applies Gilbert beyond ER; outpatient clinic context)
- York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 222 Ill. 2d 147 (Ill. 2006) (apparent authority satisfied where plaintiff relied on hospital’s reputation rather than a particular physician)
- Spiegelman v. Victory Mem’l Hosp., 392 Ill. App. 3d 826 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (hospital advertising and representations are relevant to the "holding out" inquiry even if plaintiff did not personally view them)
- Butkiewicz v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., 311 Ill. App. 3d 508 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (Gilbert not limited to emergency room setting; clarifies reliance analysis)