Court Opinion

ID: 9594463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:30:10.816919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:23.567608
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(concurring). I dissented in Pamperin v. Trinity Memorial, 144 Wis. 2d 188, 423 N.W.2d 848 (1988), because the court over-extended the doctrine of apparent authority to a radiologist who was an independent contractor. In Pamperin, the plaintiff was unaware of the radiologist's relationship with the hospital or that he even existed, and was unaware that the radiologist would be reading x-rays and giving an opinion to the hospital concerning the plaintiffs condition.
In contrast, in the present case, the patient was fully aware of the doctor's involvement in her treatment. Dr. Steven Port consulted with Ms. Kashishian and alerted her of his decisions concerning her surgery and other health care matters. Moreover, Ms. Kashishian signed a consent form before the operation acknowledging that Dr. Port was one of the doctors performing the procedure. Because Ms. Kashishian had knowledge of the doctor's involvement in her care, this court has properly decided that an issue of material fact exists as to whether Dr. Port was the apparent agent of Mount Sinai.