indirect claim in Ohio

2020"Agency by estoppel is not a direct claim against a hospital, but an indirect claim for the vicarious liability of an independent contractor with whom the hospital contracted for professional services." Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 , 2005-Ohio-4559 , ¶ 27.

2012Agency by Estoppel {¶ 16} “Agency by estoppel is not a direct claim against a hospital, but an indirect claim for the vicarious liability of an independent contractor with whom the hospital contracted for professional services.” Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 , 2005-Ohio-4559 , 833 N.E.2d 712 , ¶ 27.

2012(Albain v. Flower Hosp. [1990], 50 Ohio St.3d 251 , 553 N.E.2d 1038 , paragraph four of the syllabus, overruled.) {¶54} Subsequently, in Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 , 833 N.E.2d 712 , 2005-Ohio-4559 , ¶ 27–28, the Supreme Court explained: Agency by estoppel is not a direct claim against a hospital, but an indirect claim for the vicarious liability of an independent contractor with whom the hospital contracted for professional services.

2012(Albain v. Flower Hosp. [1990], 50 Ohio St.3d 251 , 553 N.E.2d 1038 , paragraph four of the syllabus, overruled.) {¶54} Subsequently, in Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 , 833 N.E.2d 712 , 2005-Ohio-4559 , ¶ 27–28, the Supreme Court explained: Agency by estoppel is not a direct claim against a hospital, but an indirect claim for the vicarious liability of an independent contractor with whom the hospital contracted for professional services.

2011Relying on these cases, in Tausch v. Riverview Health Inst., L.L.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 173 , 2010-Ohio-502 , 931 N.E.2d 613 , this court observed that “ ‘agency by estoppel is a derivative claim of vicarious liability whereby the liability of the hospital must flow through the independent-contractor physician.’ ” Id. at ¶ 19, quoting Comer v. Risko at ¶ 28. {¶ 31} Here, the Copes properly alleged this agency theory in their motion to reconsider as an avenue by which agency might be proven.

2011Relying on these cases, in Tausch v. Riverview Health Inst., L.L.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 173 , 2010-Ohio-502 , 931 N.E.2d 613 , this court observed that “ ‘agency by estoppel is a derivative claim of vicarious liability whereby the liability of the hospital must flow through the independent-contractor physician.’ ” Id. at ¶ 19, quoting Comer v. Risko at ¶ 28. {¶ 31} Here, the Copes properly alleged this agency theory in their motion to reconsider as an avenue by which agency might be proven.

2011Thus, this argument is properly before this court. {¶ 29} “A hospital may be held liable under the doctrine of agency by estoppel for the negligence of independent medical practitioners practicing in the hospital when: (1) it holds itself out to the public as a provider of medical services; and (2) 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.” Clark v. Southview Hosp. & Family Health Ctr. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 435 , 628 N.E.2d 46 , syllabus. {¶ 30} “Agency by estoppel is n

2000Mauzy v. Kelly Serv., Inc. , 75 Ohio St.3d at 582 , citing Barker v. Scovill, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 146 , 147-48 , and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792 , 802 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 , 677 .

2000Mauzy v. Kelly Serv., Inc. , 75 Ohio St.3d at 582 , citing Barker v. Scovill, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 146 , 147-48 , and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792 , 802 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 , 677 .

2000Mauzy v. Kelly Serv., Inc. , 75 Ohio St.3d at 582 , citing Barker v. Scovill, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 146 , 147-48 , and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792 , 802 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 , 677 .

2000Mauzy v. Kelly Serv., Inc. , 75 Ohio St.3d at 582 , citing Barker v. Scovill, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 146 , 147-48 , and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792 , 802 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 , 677 .