Medical Malpractice Suit Revived by Appeals Court

In a case illustrating the complexities of hospital liability, the Michigan Court of Appeals has reopened a medical malpractice lawsuit against Hillsdale Hospital. The lawsuit was brought by Darlene Webb, who alleged negligence by gynecologist Alfred K. Bediako during a 2019 surgery to remove an ovarian mass. Webb claimed the procedure resulted in severe complications, including a bowel perforation that went undiagnosed, leading to sepsis and the need for a second surgery.

Webb contended that Bediako was an ostensible agent of Hillsdale Hospital and therefore the facility should share liability for his alleged negligence.

The Allegations

Central to the case is the doctrine of ostensible agency, which allows hospitals to be held liable for the actions of independent contractors under certain conditions. Webb argued that the hospital created a perception that Bediako was acting as its agent, pointing to factors such as the physician’s hospital-branded scrubs and the similarity in naming between Hillsdale Hospital and Bediako’s clinic, Hillsdale Obstetrics and Gynecology PC.

While Webb had a preexisting relationship with Bediako dating back to 2007, she claimed her reliance on the hospital’s referral and diagnostic services reinforced her belief in this agency relationship. However, Hillsdale Hospital countered that Webb signed a consent form explicitly stating her doctors were not hospital employees or agents.

The Trial Court Ruling

Initially, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the hospital, concluding there was no material fact supporting Webb’s claim of ostensible agency. The court emphasized the long-standing relationship between Webb and Bediako, as well as the clarity of the consent form.

Judge Michael Riordan, later dissenting in the appellate review, maintained that a preexisting doctor-patient relationship inherently negates any reasonable belief that the physician is an agent of the hospital. He argued the consent form further solidified this understanding.

The Appeals Panel’s Decision

In a 2-1 ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding genuine issues of material fact meriting further litigation. Judges Adrienne N. Young and Randy J. Wallace emphasized that a jury should determine whether Webb reasonably believed Bediako was acting on behalf of the hospital.

The majority cited evidence that Webb’s surgery was closely tied to hospital-based diagnostics, including ultrasounds and blood tests, and noted the lack of steps by the hospital to clarify Bediako’s employment status. They referenced the 1978 Michigan Supreme Court case Grewe v. Mt. Clemens General Hospital, which established the importance of a patient’s perception in determining agency relationships.

"The critical question," the panel wrote, "is whether Webb looked to the hospital for treatment or simply viewed it as the site of her physician’s care." The panel found that hospital-branded scrubs and the absence of disclaimers during treatment could reasonably lead Webb to believe Bediako was a hospital employee.

What’s Next?

The case now returns to the trial court, where a jury will evaluate the extent of the hospital’s liability. Legal experts predict the case could impact future litigation involving the ostensible agency doctrine, particularly where preexisting relationships and consent forms intersect.

The dissenting opinion raised concerns that the appellate decision could weaken the effectiveness of disclaimers in shielding hospitals from liability. "This logic defies reason," Judge Riordan wrote, warning that the majority’s approach undermines the ability of hospitals to clearly delineate roles.

With ongoing debates about the liability of hospitals for the actions of independent contractors, the outcome of this case may set a precedent for future malpractice claims involving agency relationships.