Opinion ID: 1656455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Conditions of Admission Form

Text: ¶ 25. The record indicates, however, that SPCH clearly wants its patients to know and understand that Dr. Quesnel is not its employee or agent. Indeed, Wright's Admission Form, which she had to sign as a condition of admission to SPCH, reads as follows: I further understand that the physicians providing care and treatment to me, including radiologists, pathologists, and anesthesiologists, are not employees or agents of and are not supervised or controlled by the hospital. (Emphasis added). ¶ 26. The glaring conflict between this Form and the employment contract raises a genuine issue of material fact as to Dr. Quesnel's employment status. SPCH cannot have it both ways. Dr. Quesnel either is or is not SPCH's employee. This is an issue of material fact that should have barred granting summary judgment below. Further, as mentioned, the record before this Court does not support the circuit court's ruling that the Form is not dispositive in this case. For these reasons, I disagree with the majority's holding. ¶ 27. A similar factual scenario occurred in Miller v. Meeks in which this Court held that summary judgment against the Plaintiff was improper, in part, based upon his private clinic appointment card. 762 So.2d at 307. The plaintiff-patient, Mr. Fox, was treated by Dr. Meeks at UMMC. Fox was issued appointment cards for his visits which, at the bottom, directed him to the UMMC private clinic, thus indicating that the services rendered there by Dr. Meeks were not governed by Dr. Meeks UMMC employment contract but rather by Dr. Meeks as a private physician. Id. Ultimately, the private clinic declaration on Fox's appointment card, in conjunction with Dr. Meek's fee/pay arrangements with UMMC for services rendered there, were enough for this Court to reverse summary judgment as to whether Dr. Meeks was an employee of UMMC while serving in the private clinic. Id. at 309. Similarly, in the present case, was Dr. Quesnel acting as a private physician, if in fact, the Form clearly said he was not an SPCH employee? In both Miller and the present case, the hospital attempted to declare the same thing: It is not responsible for the treatment provided by this particular doctor, period; the doctor is on his own. ¶ 28. Since SPCH's own representation that Dr. Quesnel is not an employee is contradicted by its employment contract, summary judgment for Dr. Quesnel on this issue was improper. Therefore, I disagree with the majority's rationale on this matter.