(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice/birth injury case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS’ INCORRECT THEORIES OF LIABILITY
Plaintiffs’ primary theory of liability against Universal Hospital Medical Center is one of imputed liability based on an incorrectly collapsed theory of two separate and distinct tort principles: (1) Ostensible agency; and (2) Liability for subsequent negligent medical treatment.
Plaintiffs will begrudgingly admit that Dr. Brown was not an employee of Universal Hospital but they claim he was the ostensible agent of Universal Hospital Medical Center. According to plaintiff’s, Universal Hospital is therefore liable for the wrongful acts and omissions of Dr. Brown. In addition, however, plaintiff’s also take the position that because Dr. Brown’s liability for plaintiff’s’ damages is imputed to Universal Hospital under ostensible agency concepts, Universal Hospital becomes an original tortfeasor who is then also liable for the injuries allegedly incurred as a result of all subsequent negligent medical treatment.
Plaintiffs claim, in effect, that even in the absence of actual fault, Universal Hospital Medical Center becomes vicariously, vicariously liable for the injuries allegedly caused by all defendants other than Dr. Brown, too.
Plaintiffs advocate incorrect theories as their basis for the imposition of doubly-imputed liability and this attenuated theory of liability should not be sanctioned by this Court. We also provide the Court guidance on other relevant areas of the law applicable to this case. (See Part 4 of 10.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.