Wallace v. ALEXIAN BROS. MEDICAL CENTER

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that there is no holding out where the patient “was placed on notice of the independent contractor status of” the doctor
• noting that such disclaimers, though “not always dispositive on the issue of ‘holding out,’ *** are an important factor to consider”
• noting that a signed consent form is an “important factor” because it “explicitly states” the doctors are independent contractors
• finding the disclosure language sufficiently different from that in Schroeder because it contained specific “independent contractor” language and clearly stated that the hospital’s billing practices were separate and distinct from those of the physicians
• affirming the entry of summary judgment when - 51 - the patient had signed the same consent form four times before and no evidence in the record suggested that she was confused or did not sign the most recent fifth consent form
• affirming summary judgment in favor of the hospital, and noting that the plaintiff “signed a consent form that clearly indicated that defendant contracted with independent physicians to provide services to patients” and that the physicians’ status was “ ‘clearly set out’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).