Dewald v. HCA Health Services of Tennessee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court considered whether a hospital could be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of an independent-contractor radiologist under an apparent-agency theory. Applying the standard adopted in the companion case Boren v. Weeks, the court reversed summary judgment for the hospital and remanded for further proceedings concerning notice and the elements of apparent agency.

Holdings

1. The Court of Appeals erred in granting StoneCrest summary judgment because the apparent-agency claim had to be evaluated under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 429 analysis adopted in Boren v. Weeks, and the record required reconsideration under that standard.
2. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party demonstrates that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review is de novo without a presumption of correctness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that no genuine issues of material fact existed concerning StoneCrest's potential apparent-agency relationship with Dr. Lamballe.
2. Whether StoneCrest was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claim that it was vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of an independent-contractor radiologist.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded