apparent authority doctrine in Illinois

2026App. 3d 552, 561 (2001). ¶ 64 In Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511 (1993), the Illinois Supreme Court identified three factors necessary to establish a hospital’s vicarious liability under the doctrine of apparent authority, i.e., apparent agency.

2025As the supreme court has explained, the apparent authority doctrine itself “ ‘functions like an estoppel’ and ‘[w]here the principal creates the appearance of authority, a court will not hear the principal’s denials of agency to the prejudice of an innocent third party, who has been led to reasonably rely - 59 - upon the agency and is harmed as a result.’ ” Id. ¶ 33 (quoting Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 17, 31 (1999)). ¶ 220 The supreme court’s policy on this matter recognizes two corresponding principles: first, that hospitals receive a tangible financial bene

2024For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must show that: “ ‘(1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.’ ” Id. at 525 (quot

2019Specifically, in the hospital context: " 'For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary

2025As the supreme court has explained, the apparent authority doctrine itself “ ‘functions like an estoppel’ and ‘[w]here the principal creates the appearance of authority, a court will not hear the principal’s denials of agency to the prejudice of an innocent third party, who has been led to reasonably rely - 59 - upon the agency and is harmed as a result.’ ” Id. ¶ 33 (quoting Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 17, 31 (1999)). ¶ 220 The supreme court’s policy on this matter recognizes two corresponding principles: first, that hospitals receive a tangible financial bene

2025As the supreme court has explained, the apparent authority doctrine itself “ ‘functions like an estoppel’ and ‘[w]here the principal creates the appearance of authority, a court will not hear the principal’s denials of agency to the prejudice of an innocent third party, who has been led to reasonably rely - 59 - upon the agency and is harmed as a result.’ ” Id. ¶ 33 (quoting Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 17, 31 (1999)). ¶ 220 The supreme court’s policy on this matter recognizes two corresponding principles: first, that hospitals receive a tangible financial bene

2019Luke's Medical Center , 222 Ill. 2d 147 , 187, 305 Ill.Dec. 43 , 854 N.E.2d 635 (2006) (quoting O'Banner v. McDonald's Corp. , 173 Ill. 2d 208 , 213, 218 Ill.Dec. 910 , 670 N.E.2d 632 (1996) ). ¶ 18 Our supreme court first applied the apparent authority doctrine in a medical malpractice context in Gilbert , 156 Ill. 2d 511 , 190 Ill.Dec. 758 , 622 N.E.2d 788 , the main case on which Harris relies.

2019Luke's Medical Center , 222 Ill. 2d 147 , 187, 305 Ill.Dec. 43 , 854 N.E.2d 635 (2006) (quoting O'Banner v. McDonald's Corp. , 173 Ill. 2d 208 , 213, 218 Ill.Dec. 910 , 670 N.E.2d 632 (1996) ). ¶ 18 Our supreme court first applied the apparent authority doctrine in a medical malpractice context in Gilbert , 156 Ill. 2d 511 , 190 Ill.Dec. 758 , 622 N.E.2d 788 , the main case on which Harris relies.

2017App. 3d 452, 461 (1986) (“The agent’s authority must be derived from some act or statement of the principal.” (Emphasis in original.)). ¶ 41 The rationale behind the doctrine of apparent authority is that “[t]he principal, having created the appearance of authority, is estopped to deny it to the detriment of a third party.” State Security Insurance Co. v. Burgos, 145 Ill. 2d 423, 432 (1991).

2017App. 3d 452, 461 (1986) (“The agent’s authority must be derived from some act or statement of the principal.” (Emphasis in original.)). ¶ 41 The rationale behind the doctrine of apparent authority is that “[t]he principal, having created the appearance of authority, is estopped to deny it to the detriment of a third party.” State Security Insurance Co. v. Burgos, 145 Ill. 2d 423, 432 (1991).

2023However, “if only one conclusion may be drawn from the undisputed facts, then a question of law is presented which may be appropriately dispensed with by summary judgment.” James by James v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, 299 Ill. App. 3d 627, 632 (1998). ¶ 15 Under the doctrine of apparent authority, a principal is not only bound by the authority it actually gives to another, but also “by the authority which [it] appears to give.” Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511, 523 (1993).

2021See James v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, 299 Ill. App. 3d 627, 632 (1998). ¶ 19 The doctrine of apparent authority, as related to medical negligence, states that a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at that hospital, regardless of whether the physician is an independent contractor.

2019Nevertheless, under the doctrine of apparent authority, "[a] principal will be bound not only by that authority which he actually gives to another, but also by the authority that he appears to give." Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital , 156 Ill. 2d 511 , 523, 190 Ill.Dec. 758 , 622 N.E.2d 788 (1993) ; see also Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville , 2012 IL 113148 , ¶ 35, 364 Ill.Dec. 40 , 976 N.E.2d 318 .

2019Nevertheless, under the doctrine of apparent authority, "[a] principal will be bound not only by that authority which he actually gives to another, but also by the authority that he appears to give." Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital , 156 Ill. 2d 511 , 523, 190 Ill.Dec. 758 , 622 N.E.2d 788 (1993) ; see also Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville , 2012 IL 113148 , ¶ 35, 364 Ill.Dec. 40 , 976 N.E.2d 318 .

2000People v. Pickens, 275 Ill.

2000People v. Pickens, 275 Ill.

1999App. 3d 103 (1998), appeal allowed, 183 Ill. 2d 569 (1999), held that the apparent authority doctrine as espoused in Gilbert applies to HMOs. 296 Ill.

1999App. 3d 103 (1998), appeal allowed , 183 Ill. 2d 569 (1999), held that the apparent authority doctrine as espoused in Gilbert applies to HMOs. 296 Ill.

1999Vernon Hospital, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 145, 163 (1989)).

1999Vernon Hospital, Inc. , 131 Ill. 2d 145, 163 (1989)).

2024“To survive a defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment on a claim of apparent agency, a plaintiff must present at least some evidence to satisfy each of the Gilbert factors.” Lamb- Rosenfeldt v. Burke Medical Group, Ltd., 2012 IL App (1st) 101558, ¶ 25 . 10 ¶ 22 A. A Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists on the “Holding Out” Element ¶ 23 Solorzano asserts that either Dr. Romano’s or WSMC’s actions would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Dr. Romano worked for WSMC because the hospital’s website promoted its physicians and its orthopedics department, Dr. Romano’s office was locat

2023Lamb- Rosenfeldt v. Burke Medical Group, Ltd., 2012 IL App (1st) 101558, ¶ 25 .

2024Where the principal creates the appearance of authority, he cannot then deny agency “ ‘to the prejudice of an innocent party, who has been led to rely on the appearance of authority in the agent.’ ” Id. at 524 (citing Union Stock Yard & Transit Co. v. Mallory, Son & Zimmerman Co., 157 Ill. 554, 565 (1895)). ¶ 25 As our supreme court delineated in Gilbert, to prevail on a claim of apparent agency against a hospital under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must show that (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the indivi

2018Id. ¶ 29 We set forth the following three elements for a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority: “ ‘[A] plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent

2019Luke's Medical Center , 222 Ill. 2d 147 , 187, 305 Ill.Dec. 43 , 854 N.E.2d 635 (2006) (quoting O'Banner v. McDonald's Corp. , 173 Ill. 2d 208 , 213, 218 Ill.Dec. 910 , 670 N.E.2d 632 (1996) ). ¶ 18 Our supreme court first applied the apparent authority doctrine in a medical malpractice context in Gilbert , 156 Ill. 2d 511 , 190 Ill.Dec. 758 , 622 N.E.2d 788 , the main case on which Harris relies.

2019Luke's Medical Center , 222 Ill. 2d 147 , 187, 305 Ill.Dec. 43 , 854 N.E.2d 635 (2006) (quoting O'Banner v. McDonald's Corp. , 173 Ill. 2d 208 , 213, 218 Ill.Dec. 910 , 670 N.E.2d 632 (1996) ). ¶ 18 Our supreme court first applied the apparent authority doctrine in a medical malpractice context in Gilbert , 156 Ill. 2d 511 , 190 Ill.Dec. 758 , 622 N.E.2d 788 , the main case on which Harris relies.

2023See Mizyed, 2016 IL App (1st) 142790, ¶ 39 . ¶ 34 In determining whether the holding out element has been satisfied, one of the factors that a court will consider is whether the patient signed a hospital consent to treatment form that contained independent contractor disclaimer language that was clear, unambiguous, and conspicuous.

2021See Stewart v. Jones, 318 Ill. App. 3d 552, 560-61 (2001).

2016See Frezados v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, 2013 IL App (1st) 121835, ¶ 5 (physicians providing services " 'are not employees, agents or apparent agents' "); Lamb-Rosenfeldt v. Burke Medical Group, Ltd., 2012 IL App (1st) 101558, ¶ 4 (form stated that none of the attending physicians are employees); Churkey, 329 Ill.