You are here: / / Circumstances When Hospital May Be Liable for Actions of Non-Employee Doctor...
,

Circumstances When Hospital May Be Liable for Actions of Non-Employee Doctor Explained

The Second Department determined the defendant hospital was not liable for the alleged negligence of a doctor (Berlingieri) who was not a hospital employee.  In the course of the decision, the court explained when a hospital may be liable for the actions of a non-employee doctor:

“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee” … . An exception to this general rule exists where a plaintiff seeks to hold a hospital vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of an attending physician who is not its employee where “a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … . Thus, in order to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law defeating a claim of vicarious liability, a hospital must demonstrate that the physician alleged to have committed the malpractice “was an independent contractor and not a hospital employee” …, and that “the exception to the general rule did not apply” … . In this case, the hospital met that burden by demonstrating that Berlingieri was not a hospital employee, and that [plaintiff] sought treatment from a particular physician, Joanow, went to the hospital at Joanow’s direction, and was in fact treated by Joanow and a medical team that he assembled shortly after her admission … .

A plaintiff may rebut a hospital’s prima facie showing by raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the hospital can be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of an attending physician who is not under its employ pursuant to a theory of “apparent or ostensible agency” … . To support a viable claim based upon ostensible agency, a plaintiff must set forth facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the hospital engaged in some misleading conduct upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied when the plaintiff decided to accept medical services from the hospital … . There is no evidence that [plaintiff] was misled by the hospital into believing that Berlingieri was a member of its staff, and the record does not reflect any other allegation by [plaintiff] that she believed there to be an employment relationship between Berlingieri and the hospital, and that she thereupon accepted his services in reliance upon such a relationship … . Muslim v Horizon Med Group PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03991, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

You might also like
A PLAINTIFF BRINGING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION MUST ADDRESS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RAISED IN THE ANSWER; HERE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE OWNER OF A LEASED CAR IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER, WAS RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IN THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
REFERENCES TO JUDGMENTS IN A LICENSE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDACTED IN THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY CONSUMER AFFAIRS OFFICE IN RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST (SECOND DEPT).
DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY OR INCREASED PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE WERE NOT INTERTWINED; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT THAT THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; IN RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, THE JUDGE PROPERLY TOLD THEM THEY COULD FIND THAT THE ACCIDENT DID NOT HAPPEN (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
NO PRESUMPTION THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD ARE SERVED BY PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (2ND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

School Not Liable for Three-Year-Old’s Failure to Get Off the Bus After... Allegations Supported the Existence of an “Implied Physician-Patient Relationship”...