When a physician commits medical malpractice in a hospital, the hospital itself may be responsible for the patient’s injuries. If the physician is employed by the hospital, the hospital may be vicariously liable, just as any employer is ultimately responsible for the work-related wrongs of its employee. Similarly, if the medical negligence is committed by nurses or therapists who are employed by the hospital, the hospital may be held responsible. Where one person acts as the employee of another, both the employee (the “agent”) and the employer (the “principal”) are responsible.

Physician Malpractice – Non-employee Physicians

Most people would be surprised to learn that many physicians are not employed by the hospitals in which they practice. In advertisements or on websites, hospitals might hold out physicians as “our doctors” even when those doctors are not technically hospital employees. In medical malpractice lawsuits involving non-employee physicians, hospitals take the position that they are akin to large hotels, and that they are not responsible for the activities of the doctors who practice medicine on their premises. However, even when there is no actual employment relationship, the hospital may be responsible. When a patient receives care from a doctor in the reasonable belief that the physician was an employee of the hospital, and where the hospital has held out the physician as an employee, courts may allow recovery on a theory of “apparent agency.” In other words, if the doctor “appeared” to be the agent, he will be an agent in the eyes of the law.

Hospitals – Corporate Liability

Hospitals can also be held “corporately liable” even in the absence of an actual or apparent agency relationship with a physician. If the hospital fails to check the qualifications of the doctors or nurses who mistreat you, the hospital can be vicariously liable for the acts of those doctors and nurses, and can also be independently liable for having hired them in the first place. Hospitals also have a duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment, a duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within their walls as to patient care, and a duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for their patients. A hospital’s failure to satisfy any of those obligations may render it liable under Pennsylvania law.

Because an individual physician’s malpractice insurance coverage may not be enough to fully compensate a patient who has been seriously injured, it is essential to consider the hospital itself as a defendant under appropriate circumstances. Slade McLaughlin and Paul Lauricella have extensive experience in medical malpractice matters, and understand how and when to hold hospitals and physicians accountable.