McCorry v. Evangelical Hospitals Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the evidence could support a finding that the hospital held itself out as the principal for its agents when the hospital’s advertisements said that its staff included hundreds of “highly qualified physicians” and referred to them as “ ‘our physicians’ ”
• noting that the hospital’s consent form included no indication that Christ Hospital did not employ its surgeons and physicians and concluding that “[n]othing in *** the forms the hospital presented to plaintiffs showed that [the doctor] did not act as the hospital’s agent”
• “[Butkiewicz] focused improperly on the plaintiffs reasons for choosing the hospital, rather than the plaintiffs reasons for accepting treatment from the allegedly negligent physician”
• “under Kashishian and Pamperin as adopted in Gilbert, the court must determine whether the appearance of agency led to the relationship between plaintiffs and *** the allegedly negligent doctor”
• “[i]f a plaintiff shows that he relied in part on the hospital when he accepted treatment from an allegedly negligent doctor, he has met the reliance element of the proof’
• hospital not liable for negligence of non-employee physician with admitting privileges if plaintiff selected physician prior to selecting hospital, but hospital may be liable for doctors physician consulted if hospital held consulted specialists out as agents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).