[SOLVED] Riedel v. Akron General Health System Court

Riedel v. Akron General Health System
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, 2018 -Ohio- 840, 97 N.E.3d 508 (2018).
Background and Facts Akron General Health System owns and operates health-care centers, including Lodi Community Hospital, in Ohio. Aaron Riedel was experiencing severe back pain when he visited the emergency room at Lodi. Attending physician Chris Kalapodis failed to timely diagnose the problem—a spinal epidural abscess. Riedel filed a suit in an Ohio state court against the hospital, alleging that the physician’s negligence was the proximate cause of Riedel’s subsequent paraplegia and seeking to recover medical expenses and the cost of future care. Lodi argued that it was not liable because Kalapodis was not its employee or agent. The jury issued a verdict in Riedel’s favor and found that he was entitled to $5.2 million in damages, which the court awarded. Lodi appealed.
In the Language of the Court
Anita Laster MAYS, J. [Judge]:
A hospital may be held liable under the doctrine of agency by estoppel for the negligence of independent medical practitioners practicing in the hospital if it holds itself out to the public as a provider of medical services and in the absence of notice or knowledge to the contrary, the patient looks to the hospital, as opposed to the individual practitioner, to provide competent medical care. Lodi argues that both prongs of the requirements must be met and that the evidence was insufficient to meet the second prong of the test because Riedel did not testify that he “looked to the hospital, as opposed to the individual practitioner, to provide competent medical care” and that he admitted that he was “going to be treated by a doctor” upon his arrival at the hospital.
The emergency room has become the community medical center, serving as the portal of entry to the myriad of services available at the hospital. As an industry, hospitals spend enormous amounts of money advertising in an effort to compete with each other for the health care dollar, thereby inducing the public to rely on them in their time of medical need. The public, in looking to the hospital to provide such care, is unaware of and unconcerned with the technical complexities and nuances surrounding the contractual and employment arrangements between the hospital and the various medical personnel operating therein. Indeed, often the very nature of a medical emergency precludes choice.
Public policy dictates that the public has every right to assume and expect that the hospital is the medical provider it purports to be. [Emphasis added.] Unless the patient merely viewed the hospital as the situs [the physical location where his] physician would treat [him], [he] had the right to assume and expect that the treatment was being rendered through hospital employees and that any negligence associated therewith would render the hospital liable. There is no evidence in the record that Riedel had a doctor-patient relationship with Dr. Kalapodis prior to the Lodi emergency room encounter.
Riedel testified that Lodi was close to his daughters’ home and he was seeking emergency medical care. Riedel had no information that Dr. Kalapodis was not directly employed by Lodi. We agree with [Riedel] that it is hardly unusual for a person seeking emergency medical care to expect to be treated by a physician employed by a hospital.
Decision and Remedy; A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court. The court stated, “The record contains substantial competent evidence to support the jury’s finding of liability by estoppel.” As for the remedy, the amount of the damages fell within the range of estimates in expert analyses submitted by the parties supporting the cost of the life-care plan for Riedel’s permanent disability.
Critical Thinking
• Legal Environment: An unconscious individual transported to a hospital would be unable to demonstrate that he or she was seeking care from the hospital and not a particular physician. Would the public policy considerations stated in the Riedel case apply? Why or why not?
• What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose that a sign had been posted in the Lodi emergency room spelling out the legal relationship between the hospital and the attending physician. Would the result have been different? Explain.

Question: Riedel v. Akron General Health System Court