The Michigan Court of Appeals recently reinforced an important principle for patients and families seeking accountability when medical malpractice occurs in a hospital setting. In Estate of Baker-Olson v. Martin, the court held that while the plaintiff-estate did not prove actual agency between the defendant-hospital (McLaren) and the defendant-doctor (Martin), there was enough evidence for a jury to decide whether McLaren could be held vicariously liable under a theory of ostensible agency.
What Happened in This Case
Baker-Olson went to Harbor Beach emergency department complaining of chest pain and was transferred to McLaren Hospital for further treatment. At McLaren, she met with Dr. Martin, who recommended aortocoronary bypass surgery. Tragically, while waiting for surgery, Baker-Olson suffered cardiopulmonary arrest and died.
The plaintiff-estate sued both Dr. Martin and McLaren, arguing McLaren should be vicariously liable for Dr. Martin’s actions under two theories: actual agency and ostensible agency.
No Evidence of Actual Agency — But Ostensible Agency Survives
The trial court originally granted McLaren’s motion for summary disposition, finding there was no genuine issue of fact that Dr. Martin was an independent contractor, not an employee. The Court of Appeals agreed there was no proof of actual agency — there was no direct employment relationship.
But the case did not end there. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling as to ostensible agency. Ostensible agency arises when a hospital leads a patient to reasonably believe a doctor is its agent, even if there is no direct employment relationship. This concept protects patients who reasonably trust that the hospital is providing their care — not independent contractors.
In this case, Baker-Olson did not know Dr. Martin beforehand, never had a preexisting relationship with him, and sought care directly from McLaren for an emergent heart condition. She was not given any clear notice that Dr. Martin was an independent contractor. The only evidence McLaren offered — that Martin performed surgeries at other hospitals — did not defeat the question of whether Baker-Olson reasonably believed he was acting on McLaren’s behalf.
The court also rejected McLaren’s argument that the leading case on ostensible agency, Grewe v. Mt. Clemens General Hospital, applies only to emergency room treatment. It found no basis to limit Grewe in that way — if a patient seeks care from a hospital and reasonably believes the hospital is providing her doctors, the hospital may be responsible for their actions.
What This Means for Patients and Families
The Baker-Olson decision is a reminder that hospitals cannot easily shield themselves from responsibility simply by labeling physicians as independent contractors behind the scenes. When patients come to a hospital seeking care — especially in an emergency or urgent situation — they trust the hospital to provide competent medical professionals. If that trust is violated, the hospital may still be accountable under ostensible agency.
At Olsman MacKenzie Peacock, we know how hospitals and corporate healthcare systems attempt to avoid responsibility when preventable harm occurs. We have decades of experience proving hospital liability under all appropriate legal theories, including ostensible agency, and fighting to secure full justice for patients and their families.
If you or a loved one has suffered harm while under hospital care, we invite you to reach out to our team to discuss your options. We are here to help you hold hospitals and healthcare providers accountable when they fail to protect their patients.