LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A plaintiff who settled medical malpractice claims against a surgeon for $1 million can’t also recover from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, a California appeals court has ruled.
The Second Appellate District on Aug. 22 rebuffed Michael Franklin’s effort to hold the hospital vicariously liable for the actions of Dr. John Park, whose malpractice insurer had already paid out the maximum to Franklin.
The decision affirmed a Santa Barbara County ruling in favor of the hospital.
“At the emergency room before the surgery, appellant signed a consent form expressly stating that the physicians providing services to appellant are not Hospital’s agents or employees,” the decision says.
“A witness to appellant’s signing of the form routinely informed patients that physicians are not Hospital’s employees but instead are independent contractors.”
Park’s practice had a contract with Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital to provide neurological services there. It stipulated that no employer-employee relationship was created by the agreement.
Franklin was referred to Park for a herniated disc in 2015. Park recommended a discectomy, and told Franklin on Jan. 30 if he were to go to the emergency room at Cottage Hospital that day, Park would be able to perform the surgery.
A financial counselor testified that she informed Franklin that Park was not a Cottage Hospital employee.
During the surgery, Franklin suffered a small tear of the outer membrane of his spinal cord, called a durotomy. He says he developed serious neurological problems as a result.
But even with $1 million from Park’s insurer, Franklin wanted more from the hospital. Both courts ruled he failed to make his case that Cottage was partly to blame for the surgery.
Franklin had claimed Park was an “actual agent” of Cottage because the hospital dictated how much vacation he could take, that he treat certain types of patients, what charities he must support, the time he must be on emergency call and that he must spend 24 hours a month as the director of the Neurosurgical Oncology Program.
“The above five examples of Hospital’s alleged control over Dr. Park have nothing to do with his medical treatment of patients,” the decision says.