Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson

Supreme Court of Texas · Torts

Tortsvicarious liabilityhospital liabilityostensible agencyemergency room physician malpracticerespondeat superiorindependent contractorhospital

Facts

Sampson twice sought treatment in Southeast Baptist Hospital's emergency room after a spider bite, and on the second visit Dr. Zakula treated and released her. The parties agreed Dr. Zakula was not actually the Hospital's agent or employee. The Hospital produced summary judgment evidence that emergency room physicians were independent contractors, that signs in the emergency room so stated, that physicians billed patients directly, and that Sampson signed consent forms before each visit stating that physicians were independent contractors and not hospital agents or employees. Sampson responded that she did not read or recall the forms, did not see any signs, did not choose her doctor, and believed a hospital-employed physician was treating her.

Issue

Whether Sampson raised a genuine issue of material fact that the Hospital was vicariously liable under an ostensible agency theory for Dr. Zakula's alleged negligence. More specifically, whether Texas recognizes a reduced apparent-agency standard for hospital emergency room cases or instead requires proof of all traditional estoppel-based elements.

Rule

In Texas, a hospital may be vicariously liable for an independent contractor physician's malpractice only if the plaintiff proves ostensible agency based on estoppel: (1) the plaintiff had a reasonable belief that the physician was the hospital's agent or employee, (2) that belief was generated by the hospital affirmatively holding out the physician as its agent or employee or knowingly permitting the physician to do so, and (3) the plaintiff justifiably relied on that representation. Texas does not adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts section 429 to create a different or easier test, and it does not impose a nondelegable duty on hospitals for emergency room physicians' malpractice merely because the hospital offers emergency services.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Ruiz went to the emergency department of Lakeview Regional Medical Center in Toledo, Ohio, for severe abdominal pain. Before treatment, she signed an intake form stating that all physicians providing professional services at the hospital were independent contractors, and large signs near registration said the same; the emergency physician later allegedly committed malpractice.

If Elena sues the hospital on an ostensible-agency theory, which is the strongest argument for the hospital?

Explanation. The majority requires proof that the patient’s reasonable belief was generated by the hospital affirmatively holding out the physician as its agent or knowingly permitting that impression, plus justifiable reliance. Where the hospital posts signs and uses forms stating physicians are independent contractors, the hospital has taken steps to negate, not create, an appearance of agency. A patient’s subjective assumption alone is insufficient, and the court rejected both a relaxed emergency-room rule and a nondelegable-duty theory. (Derived from Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson (n.d.).)