From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sarivola v. Brookdale Hospital & Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 1994
204 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 31, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Nicholas A. Clemente, J.).


This is a malpractice case where plaintiffs seek to impose liability on defendant hospital for treatment provided by a private doctor (radiologist) who was not an employee of the hospital, but maintained an office there. Plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit setting forth whom she believed was responsible for her treatment, but the evidence indicates that she was referred to the private physician by another private physician. The doctor alleged that he specifically advised plaintiff that he was a private physician, unaffiliated with the hospital. There is no evidence of independent acts of malpractice committed by the hospital technicians who operated the radiation equipment. There is no evidence or expert testimony that the doctor's orders were so radically different from accepted practice that the technicians should have questioned them or not carried them out.

When treatment is rendered by a private attending physician, not in the employ of a hospital, the general rule is that the hospital is not liable for acts of malpractice which are committed in carrying out the independent physician's orders (Toth v. Community Hosp., 22 N.Y.2d 255, 265; Fiorentino v Wenger, 19 N.Y.2d 407, 415). However, a hospital may be held vicariously liable, based on the principle of agency by estoppel, for the acts of an independent physician where the physician was provided by the hospital or was otherwise acting on the hospital's behalf, and the patient reasonably believed that the physician was acting at the hospital's behest (Soltis v. State of New York, 172 A.D.2d 919).

Since plaintiff did not seek treatment from the hospital directly and the hospital did not send plaintiff to the radiologist, the estoppel theory is not available to plaintiff. Nor, given the totality of the circumstances here, could the plaintiff have reasonably believed that the physician was employed by the hospital, since it is quite common for independent physicians to utilize hospital office facilities.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Sarivola v. Brookdale Hospital & Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 1994
204 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Sarivola v. Brookdale Hospital & Medical Center

Case Details

Full title:PHILOMENA SARIVOLA et al., Respondents, v. BROOKDALE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 31, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 151

Citing Cases

Malcolm v. Mount Vernon Hosp

A hospital is not exempt from liability for the negligence of physicians utilizing its facilities to practice…

Pratt v. Haber

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There is no evidence that Dr. Haber was an…