You are on page 1of 4

Case

5


Procedure:


A.

Brandon Wilson and Daphne Wilson (plaintiff) v. Edward Hospital
(defendant)

B. The plaintiff, Brandon Wilson and Daphne Wilson.

C. In the circuit court of Du Page County.

D. The trial court denied the motion, but certified a question to the appellate
court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) on the issue of
whether actual agency and apparent agency are separate claims for purposes of res
judicata and the prohibition against claim-splitting.

E. In 2004, Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District; heard in
that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, the Hon. Hollis L.
Webster, Judge, presiding.

Facts:


A.
1. In 2003, plaintiff Brandon Wilson, who was then a minor, broke his
right femur in an automobile accident.
2. He was taken to defendant Edward Hospital, where surgery was
performed to repair the fractured bone.
3. During surgery, Brandon aspirated vomit into his lungs, causing
cardiac arrest, which resulted in an anoxic brain injury.
4. In 2004, Brandon and his mother, Daphne, filed a complaint for
medical malpractice.
5. Their complaint alleged that the surgery was not of an emergency
nature and that the doctors were negligent in failing to provide for a
sufficient period of fasting prior to performing surgery on Brandon.
6. Plaintiffs alleged that all persons working at the hospital were
employees and/or agents of the hospital.
7. In a single count of their second amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged
that each of the defendant doctors was an agent in law or in fact of
the hospital and that the hospital was liable for the wrongful acts and
omissions of the doctors.
8. The hospital filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing
that the doctors were neither its actual nor its apparent agents.
9. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on the ground that
the doctors were not actual agents of the hospital.
10. The court found that a question of fact existed as to whether the
doctors were the apparent agents of the hospital.
11. In 2009, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint pursuant to
section 2-1009 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-
1009 (West 2008)).

Case 5
12. One year later, plaintiffs refilled their action.
13. In their third amended complaint, they alleged, as to the hospital, that
both doctors acted as apparent agents of the hospital.
14. The hospital argued that plaintiffs refilled action was barred by res
judicata because:
- A final judgment on the merits was rendered on plaintiffs actual
agency claim
- The causes of action against the hospital pleaded in the original
and refilled actions are identical.
- There is an identity of parties.
15. The trial court denied the hospitals motion to dismiss but granted its
motion for an order
16. The appellate court answered the certified question in the affirmative,
holding that actual agency and apparent agency are separate claims.
17. The appellate court here rejected plaintiffs argument that they had
only a single claim for negligence based upon vicarious liability that
was supported in different ways by allegations of actual agency and
apparent agency.
18. It also rejected their argument that the trial courts determination
that as a matter of law, the doctors were not the actual agents of the
hospital, did not affect the unitary nature of the negligence claim.

B.

The facts that I would know are:


Were the doctors qualified to preform this kind of surgery?
Was there anything that impacts the plaintiff while he was on
his way to the hospital?
Since the doctors should be aware of the possibility of vomiting
when the plaintiff had the fracture, did they do any action to
immediately handle the situation?


III. Issues:


A.


The issues of whether actual agency and apparent agency are separate
claims for purposes of res judicata and the prohibition against claim splitting,

B.

I do not lean to agree with all the ways that the court framed the
issues until I know what exactly harm the plaintiff, weather there was negligence
from other employees before the doctors saw the plaintiff.



Case 5
IV. Holding:



A.


We reject the hospitals argument that actual agency and apparent
agency are separate and distinct. We hold that apparent agency and actual agency
are not separate claims for purposes of res judicata and that no final order was
entered here. Plaintiffs have one claim or cause of action against the hospital,
negligence based upon the hospitals responsibility for the allegedly negligent acts
of the defendant doctors.



B.


The trial courts grant of partial summary judgment did not dispose of
the rights of the parties on a separate branch of the controversy. Therefore, the
order was not final for res judicata purposes, and plaintiffs were not barred from
asserting their allegations of apparent agency in their refilled action.



C.


I agree with letting the plaintiff assert their allegations because the
hospitals argument had been already rejected, which likely showed part of the
negligence of their actions.


V. Implications:



A.


This case has an impact of both the hospitals and physicians at the
same time because the strategy of the appointment that some hospitals used are not
in favor of them, which would place them in inappropriate situation with the
patients and the law, so there should not be any complexity of being clear of the
process with others.

B.


Its implications are to make certain that all or most of your staff is
able to conduct their duties without making any mistakes in order to avoid facing
problems with others.


C.


Healthcare administrators should think about the main things in the
field of dealing with the staff, there should be scheduled training for the staff, the
hiring and retention should be decided carefully to keep or bring the right people to
the field to provide sufficient services.

D.

If the case had been decided differently, the organizations and doctors would
not be under serious oversight of their actions and the patients would be more
neglected.



Case 5

You might also like