Joyce v. National Medical Registry, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1988
• Docket Number: No. 3-87-0359,3-87-0359
• Citation: 120 Ill.Dec. 478,170 Ill.App.3d 141,524 N.E.2d 243
• Parties: , 120 Ill.Dec. 478 William JOYCE and Ruth Morse, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Daniel Joyce, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL MEDICAL REGISTRY, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 243

524 N.E.2d 243

170 Ill.App.3d 141, 120 Ill.Dec. 478

William JOYCE and Ruth Morse, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Daniel Joyce, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL MEDICAL REGISTRY, INC., a foreign corporation Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3-87-0359.

Appellate Court of Illinois Third District.

May 25, 1988.

LeRoy A. Compton, Goldfine & Bowles, P.C., Peoria, for William Joyce, and Ruth Morse.

Wayne L. Hanold, John A. Kendrick, Westervelt, Johnson, Nicoll & Keller, Peoria, for National Medical Registry, Inc.

Justice GREEN delivered the opinion of the court:

On May 27, 1986, plaintiffs William Joyce and Ruth Morse, as administrators of the estate of Daniel Joyce, filed suit in the circuit court of Fulton County seeking to recover for the allegedly wrongful death of their infant son. The complaint alleged the decedent suffered cardiac arrest during the course of an operation, went into a coma and died. Negligence in the administration of the anesthesia was charged. The following were named as defendants and were alleged to have performed these respective functions during the operation: Maguire, surgeon; Wilner, anesthesiologist; Schroeder, certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA); Graham Hospital Association (hospital), at whose hospital the operation was performed; and National Medical Registry, Inc. (NMR), whose relationship to the case will be explained later. On May 13, 1987, the circuit court granted NMR's motion for summary judgment and made a finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (107 Ill.2d R. 304(a)). Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

The complaint charged Wilner with negligence in administering the anesthesia and monitoring the decedent during the operation. Schroeder was charged with similar specific failures in regard to the process she performed and a failure to notify Wilner as to the condition of the patient. Maguire was charged with failing to recognize the decedent's symptoms at a time when Wilner was not in the operating room and Schroeder was under his direction. The hospital was alleged to have failed to provide proper equipment and an anesthetist to cope with problems beyond Schroeder's capability. The complaint also alleged the hospital was vicariously liable for negligence of Schroeder who was its agent and servant. NMR was alleged to be the employer of Schroeder and liable as her master and principal.

The major thrust of NMR's motion for summary judgment was that Schroeder was an independent contractor. However, careful reading of the motion indicates it also maintains that, regardless of Schroeder's status, her relationship with NMR was not such as to impose liability vicariously upon NMR for her negligence. We determine the record conclusively shows a lack of relationship giving rise to vicarious liability. Accordingly, we affirm.

NMR president Gary Smith described NMR in his deposition as "an employer-retained employment agency." He said hospitals and others in need of medical professionals would contact NMR in order to obtain someone to fill a vacant position. NMR would then review the list of those professionals registered with their agency and contact available persons to see if they were interested in the position. The candidate could choose to either accept or reject the available assignment.

Schroeder, who was registered with NMR, explained in her deposition that the specific details of a new assignment, including hours and conditions of employment, were worked out between herself and the particular institution once she arrived for her assignment. In addition, she stated the hospital would provide the necessary anesthetic equipment and surgical uniforms; NMR did not supply her with any of these materials. Finally, both Smith and Schroeder agreed that the decision to terminate a CRNA was left within the complete discretion of a particular hospital; Smith stated NMR possessed no authority whatsoever to discharge a CRNA from his or her position.

The evidence before the court undisputedly showed the following chain of events. The hospital arranged for NMR to contact Schroeder to see if she was available to temporarily perform as a CRNA. NMR then did so, and Schroeder accepted the assignment. The hospital agreed with NMR to pay it $200 per day for "anesthesia time," with additional fees to be charged for overtime work to be performed by Schroeder beyond the normal five-day week. The agreement further provided...