The laws of agency have long held an employer liable for the acts of its employee.  If a nurse or doctor is employed by a hospital and commits medical malpractice, the hospital would ultimately be responsible for the nurse or doctor’s actions.

Some states also allow a patient to hold a hospital liable for the acts of non-employees under a theory of apparent agency.  For example, if a patient goes to a hospital’s emergency room and is treated by an ER physician, the hospital could be liable for the malpractice of that ER physician even if he/she is not an employee of the hospital (which is fairly common).  The Connecticut State Supreme court recently decided the Cefaratti v. Aranow case and adopted the apparent agency doctrine in Connecticut medical malpractice cases.

As noted in the readings, the doctrine of corporate negligence was first recognized in the Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital case.  The court in Darlingheld that hospitals have a duty to provide adequately training medical and nursing staff, and for establishing policies and procedures for monitoring the quality of medicine provided within the hospital.  

Should hospitals be responsible for the negligent acts of non-employed physicians?  If hospitals are responsible for the negligence of non-employed physicians as a result of apparent agency, how much control should hospitals be allowed to exercise when monitoring the quality of care provided by physicians?