Opinion ID: 2638908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant Was a Public Employee as a Matter of Law

Text: {10} We review de novo the granting of summary judgment, construing reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the party that opposed the motion. Celaya v. Hall, 2004-NMSC-005, ¶ 7, 135 N.M. 115, 85 P.3d 239. Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hagen v. Faherty, 2003-NMCA-060, ¶ 6, 133 N.M. 605, 66 P.3d 974. Had the trial judge determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether at all times relevant to Plaintiff's complaint, Defendant was a public employee rather than an independent contractor, this issue would properly have been sent to a jury. See Medina v. Fuller, 1999-NMCA-011, ¶ 22, 126 N.M. 460, 971 P.2d 851 (whether an individual acts in the course and scope of employment duties, for purposes of determining whether a particular statute of limitations applies, is for the jury when there are disputed issues of fact). However, after further briefing on a revived summary judgment motion, the judge found as a matter of law that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that defendant was a public employee, rather than an independent contractor. We affirm. {11} Plaintiff argues summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Defendant's employee status in February 1995, when she alleges Defendant negligently prescribed medication that resulted in her hospitalization and damages. Plaintiff first argues that Defendant had three different contracts with MMC, each of which separately defined Defendant as an employee or independent contractor, and that none of these contracts can be seen as legally controlling for determining whether Defendant was a public employee at the relevant time under NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-3(f) (2003) (defining public employee), and Section 41-4-15 (statute of limitations for government entities and public employees). However, by its terms the latest contract, titled Employment and Non-Competition Agreement (December Agreement), dated December 1, 1994, superceded any prior contracts between Defendant and MMC. This contract, which defined Defendant as an employee of MMC, a public hospital, controlled in February 1995, the time Defendant committed the alleged negligence. {12} How an employment contract defines the status of an individual, while relevant and material, does not answer whether an individual is a public employee or an independent contractor. We must also consider the extent to which the employer has, in the broadest sense, the right to control the individual. See Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 10, 13; Houghland v. Grant, 119 N.M. 422, 425-26, 891 P.2d 563, 566-67 (Ct. App. 1995). In Houghland, the Court of Appeals articulated four factors relevant to determining whether an employer has the right to control an individual for purpose of establishing vicarious liability: (1) whether the employer is entitled to control the manner and means of the individual's performance; (2) the method of compensating the individual; (3) whether the employer has furnished equipment for the individual; and (4) whether the employer has the power to terminate the individual without cause. Id. at 425, 891 P.2d at 566. We have since broadened this test to include additional factors: (1) the type of occupation involved and whether it is generally performed without supervision; (2) the skill required for the job; (3) whether the employer furnishes the tools or instrumentalities for the job; (4) how long the individual has been employed; (5) whether the work is part of the employer's regular business; and (6) whether the employer is engaged in business activities. Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 14-15. {13} Plaintiff argues she raised genuine issues of material fact regarding at least some of the Houghland factors that should have precluded summary judgment. The facts to which Plaintiff points, however, are either irrelevant to Defendant's employee status or otherwise insufficient to bring into question whether MMC had the manner and means to control Defendant's performance, directly compensated Defendant, furnished his equipment or had the power to terminate Defendant at will. [1] In particular, Plaintiff claims MMC did not have the right to control Defendant as illustrated by a provision of the December Agreement that precluded MMC from interfering with Defendant's exercise of his own professional judgment in his practice. This provision, however, is neither dispositive nor particularly material to whether Defendant was an employee of MMC under the Tort Claims Act. See Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 11-13 (explaining that particularly in the context of professionals, the right-to-control test is more nuanced than simply inquiring whether the employer could control the details of an individual's work); Beeck v. Tucson Gen. Hosp., 500 P.2d 1153, 1157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972) (stating that whether a hospital has the right to control the details of a physician's practice is no longer considered a relevant concern for purposes of vicarious liability). {14} We must, then, analyze the material facts regarding Defendant's working relationship with MMC, over which there does not seem to exist much dispute between the parties. The December Agreement precluded Defendant from engaging in the practice of medicine except as an employee of MMC. It allowed MMC to fire Defendant with or without cause and comprehensively dictated the terms of his service. Cf. Yerbich v. Heald, 89 N.M. 67, 69, 547 P.2d 72, 74 (Ct. App. 1976) (stating that where a contract does not discuss the power to fire, making the contract terminable at will, [t]here is a factual question as to the power to discharge). MMC required Defendant to maintain certain office hours and seek permission from MMC to change them, to maintain membership on the active medical staff of MMC and fulfill all obligations of such membership, and to perform other duties and services requested from time to time by MMC. Under the Agreement, MMC compensated Defendant with a salary, benefits, and insurance, as well as paying relevant taxes and professional dues and providing him with leave time. MMC billed patients directly for all services provided by Defendant after December 1, 1994. After December 1, 1994, MMC provided all of Defendant's supplies, equipment, and staff, and leased the office space where Defendant practiced for purposes of operating its specialty Rheumatology Clinic, although this office was in the former private office of Defendant, a separate facility from MMC. {15} In light of these facts, Plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendant's employee status under the Houghland and Celaya factors. Cf. Houghland, 119 N.M. at 427-29, 891 P.2d at 568-70 (reversing summary judgment for defendant hospital after concluding there was a factual dispute material to whether an allegedly negligent doctor was an apparent agent of the hospital under a vicarious liability theory). The trial court properly concluded, as a matter of law, that Defendant was an employee of MMC and thus a public employee at the relevant time.