July 14, 2022

Magallanes de Valle v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, F082099 (June 24, 2022) 

After being treated at a health center, plaintiff selected one of the center’s doctors as her personal physician. Over the next year, the plaintiff continued to seek treatment at the center from the same doctor. When the patient requested a further surgery, the doctor scheduled and performed the surgery at a hospital where the doctor was not employed. The plaintiff suffered complications from the surgery and sued the hospital, alleging medical negligence. Because the doctor was an independent contractor not employed by the hospital and the plaintiff conceded the hospital employees had not been negligent, plaintiff’s claim against the hospital was premised on the theory that the doctor was the hospital’s ostensible agent. The trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the pre-existing relationship between plaintiff and her doctor precluded the hospital’s liability based on ostensible agency. An ostensible agency occurs in a hospital context where a patient seeks treatment from a hospital but is not informed that the treating physician at the hospital is an independent contractor. Here, however, because plaintiff sought care from her personal physician, the court determined as a matter of law that the plaintiff should have known the doctor was not the hospital’s agent. The plaintiff chose the doctor as her treating physician and elected to undergo the surgical procedure under the doctor’s guidance. She did not rely on the hospital to choose the physician or provide care. As a result, the court found the plaintiff reasonably should have known the doctor was not an agent of the hospital and her medical negligence claim against the hospital based on ostensible agency was therefore barred.