Law student, doctor's blog explores medmal issues

An alum of my Torts I & II classes and a medical doctor, Joseph Grillo is doing some intriguing blogging at his Medical-Legal Consulting website.  Here's a teaser to a recent (May 31) item: 

Vicarious Liability Doctrines in Medical Malpractice: Ostensible or Apparent Agency

It is commonplace today that hospitals do not employ physicians. Instead the physician is considered an independent contractor. This relationship may muddy the waters when trying to hold a hospital to account under vicarious liability.

There exists an exception to the general rule that a hospital incurs no liability for the negligence of independent contractors but only for those who provide care within the traditional employment relationship.

The doctrine of ostensible agency or apparent authority has been the predominant theory upon which to base an action for vicarious liability against a hospital for the negligence of independent contractors.

SOL in Mass.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the continuing treatment exception to the state medmal limitations period (three years) and reasonable discovery rule in Parr v. Rosenthal, published this week, http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/12014.pdf.  The opinion offers a worthwhile review of the language and standards of Masschusetts common law interpretation of the statutory limitations periods.

Bonus tracks include (1) the problem of a minor plaintiff; (2) interaction with statutes of repose; (3) role of the jury in fact-finding; and (4) a dissent (from p. 37) that doesn't necessarily disagree with the rationale but thinks the upset to settled common law invaded the policy-making prerogative of the legislature.

Saliently for the litigants, the Court ruled that the limitations period ran despite operation of the continuing treatment doctrine, because the doctrine ceased to operate when the defending physician left the treatment team.

(Cross-posted to Obligations Discussion Group.)