Court Opinion

ID: 9586378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:09:59.924472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:00.376584
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur specially to point out that Abdul-Majeed v. Emory Univ. Hosp., 213 Ga. App. 421 (445 SE2d 270) (1994), cited by the majority, does not stand for the proposition that a hospital must always “explicitly inform” a patient that a non-employee treating physician is not its agent to avoid liability for the physician’s negligence under a claim that the physician was the hospital’s apparent agent. The theory of apparent agency is inapplicable, as a matter of law, any time the circumstances are sufficient to clearly show that the plaintiff patient knew or should have known that the treating physician was not an agent of the hospital. Holmes v. Univ. Health Svc., 205 Ga. App. 602, 603 (423 SE2d 281) (1992). Even if by furnishing a treating physician a hospital in effect represents that the physician is its employee, and fails to explicitly inform the patient that the physician is not its employee, the patient cannot hold the hospital liable for the non-employee physician’s negligence under apparent agency if the patient otherwise knew or should have known that the physician was not the hospital’s employee. Of course, the surest means of informing a patient that a physician furnished by the hospital is not an employee or agent of the hospital is to inform the patient of this fact in writing prior to providing medical treatment.
In the present case, there was evidence from which a jury could conclude that the hospital represented or held out the treating physicians as its agents. There was also evidence, provided by affidavits from the parents, that they justifiably relied upon this representation in accepting medical treatment for their child from the physicians because they knew of the hospital’s reputation for providing quality medical care. Although the hospital clearly notified the parents of the child in writing the day after the child’s admission that the treating physicians were not agents or employees of the hospital, there was evidence that at least some of the alleged acts of negligence by the physicians had already occurred prior to the written notification. There was no evidence that the parents of the child otherwise knew or should have known that the treating physicians were not employees of the hospital prior to the written notification. Under these circumstances, I agree that a jury question was presented as to whether the hospital could be held liable for the alleged negligence of *233the non-employee physicians under a claim of apparent or ostensible agency. Brown v. Coastal Emergency Svcs., 181 Ga. App. 893, 896-898 (354 SE2d 632) (1987), aff’d sub nom., Richmond County Hosp. Auth. v. Brown, 257 Ga. 507 (361 SE2d 164) (1987).
Decided June 24, 1996
Reconsideration denied July 11, 1996
Peterson, Dillard, Young, Asselin & Powell, Thomas H. Asselin, James M. Lachance, for appellant.
Sullivan, Hall, Booth & Smith, Alexander H. Booth, Allen & Peters, Paul E. Weathington, Love & Willingham, Daryll Love, Traci G. Courville, Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, J. M. Hudgins TV, for appellee.