Medical malpractice; Vicarious liability; Ostensible agency; Hospital emergency room; Teleradiologist; Grewe v Mt Clemens Gen Hosp; Markel v William Beaumont Hosp; Summary disposition; Affidavit; Bakeman v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest

The court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether a remote teleradiologist was defendant-hospital’s ostensible agent, and therefore summary disposition on vicarious liability was improper. Plaintiffs took their 14-month-old child to defendant’s emergency department, where a CT scan was performed and interpreted remotely by a pediatric teleradiologist working from California for a company contracted by defendant. The court first held that plaintiffs presented evidence supporting a reasonable belief in agency because they came to defendant’s emergency room, had no prior relationship with the hospital staff or treating physicians, and plaintiff-mother believed “all individuals involved in the CT scan,” including the radiologist, were hospital employees. Relying on Markel, the court reasoned this was sufficient “to create a question of fact as to ostensible agency.” The court next held that defendant did not establish it dispelled that belief because there was no evidence plaintiffs knew of defendant’s remote-radiology contract, and “the mere existence of the agreement” did not rebut plaintiffs’ reasonable belief. The court rejected defendant’s argument that ostensible agency required direct personal interaction with the physician, explaining that no binding authority requires the doctor to “be on site or have ‘some personal interaction’ with” the patient. Finally, it rejected defendant’s request to disregard the mother’s affidavit because there was no “direct conflict” between it and her deposition testimony. Reversed and remanded.