Court Opinion

ID: 9659809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:55:03.521795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.723815
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the majority that sufficient evidence was presented to support the verdict against Dr. Eades. My disagreement with the majority concerns its affirmance of the verdict against Medi-Stat, Inc. On that point, I would reverse. The part of the majority’s holding with which I make exception is the conclusion that Medi-Stat is vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Eades. In this context, the doctrine of vicarious liability is also known as respondeat superior. See H.Ward Classen, Hospital Liability for Independent Contractors: Where Do We Go From Here?, 40 Ark. L. Rev. 469 (1987). Oftentimes this vicarious liability question surrounding a physician’s negligence arises in cases involving hospitals. However, in Norton v. Hefner, 132 Ark. 18, 198 S.W. 97 (1917), the issue arose when Dr. Norton requested another physician to take charge of Norton’s patients, and after doing so the evidence reflects the other physician negligently treated the patient. Although Norton was shown not negligent in the treatment of the patient or selection of the physician, the question posited was whether he was vicariously liable for the other physician’s negligence. The Norton court said the following: [A] party employing a person who follows a distinct and independent occupation of his own, is not responsible for the negligent or improper acts of the other. The Norton court further stated that the doctrine of respondeat superior applies only in case of the negligence of a servant who acts under the directions and control of the master and does not apply to a physician or other professional man who, when employed, acts upon his own initiative and without direction from others. In other pertinent holdings, the court, consistent with the rules in Norton, stated as follows: A physician can not be regarded as an agent or servant in the usual sense of the term, since he is not and necessarily can not be directed in the diagnosing of diseases and injuries and prescribing treatment therefor, his office being to exercise his best skill and judgment in such matters, without control from those by whom he is called or his fees paid. Runyan v. Goodrum, 147 Ark. 481, 228 S.W. 397 (1921); Arkansas Midland Railroad Co. v. Pearson, 98 Ark. 399, 135 S.W. 917 (1911). When applying the rules announced in the cases above, the Arkansas law seems settled that a hospital or other entity, requiring the services of a physician, is not the employer of an independent contractor physician, and therefore, is not liable for a physician’s torts, which arise from his or her negligence or malpractice. See id. And, while this appears to be the general rule, it has also been said that if there is a bona fide ongoing employer-employee relationship between the hospital and the physician, the hospital will be held vicariously liable for the tortious actions of the physician that occurs within the scope of his employment. See 40 Ark. L. Rev. at 479. In Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Britt, 189 Ark. 571, 74 S.W.2d 398 (1934), a case relied upon by the majority, the Chicago Rock Island railway company contracted with Drs. J. P. Runyan, W. S. Britt, and other doctors (collectively known as St. Luke’s Hospital Clinic) for the clinic to provide surgical and medical attention to the company’s employees. While assisting Dr. Runyan during a surgery, Britt sustained an injury to her eye as a result of Runyan’s negligence. Britt sued both Runyan and Chicago Rock Island, and the jury returned a verdict against both Runyan and the railway company. In affirming the vicarious liability award against the company, this court set out the details of the parties’ contract and their relationship. The Britt court concluded the jury was warranted in finding that the railway company was in complete control of the hospital and Dr. Runyan. In this connection, I need not relate all the evidence discussed by the court but I would point out that, under the contract, the railway company’s chief surgeon, S. C. Plummer, had the authority to order, direct and regulate Dr. Runyan. The majority opinion, by citing the dissent in the Britt case, seems to infer that that holding reversed Runyan. I thoroughly disagree. While the Britt decision is quite detailed and, perhaps convoluted, at times, the court clearly stated that the evidence provided a fact question that a master-servant relationship existed between the parties, and that, based upon the control the railway company exercised over Dr. Runyan and the hospital, Britt’s vicarious liability award against the company was proper. In the present case, appellees failed to show that an employee/employer relationship existed between Dr. Eades and Medi-Stat. The burden, in this respect, was appellees’, see AMI 207, and appellees offered no evidence whatsoever on this issue. The majority opinion does recite evidence the appellees presented below, but none of it pertains to proving an employer/ employee relationship. Instead, it seems directed more at showing Medi-Stat was liable based upon an “ostensible agency” or “apparent authority” theory. In this regard, the majority relates that the decedent’s mother scheduled appointments with MediStat (and not a particular doctor) and that the treating doctor was merely the one present at the time of the appointment. It also notes that the clinic’s records and billings bore the name of MediStat with no mention of a physician. Again, none of these factors bear on whether Dr. Eades was an employee of Medi-Stat. If the majority recites these matters to support Medi-Stat’s liability under some other theory, such as apparent authority, it fails to say so. In any event, I believe Arkansas law, as noted above, is quite clear as it bears on whether Medi-Stat should be liable for Dr. Eades’ negligence under the circumstances and evidence presented in this case. In my view, the law requires the judgment against Medi-Stat to be reversed. Dudley and Newbern, JJ., join this opinion.