Mem'l Hosp. of Sweetwater Cnty. v. Menapace

• Decision Date: 09 November 2017
• Docket Number: S-17-0055.
• Citation: 404 P.3d 1179
• Parties: MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF SWEETWATER COUNTY, Appellant (Defendant), v. Darrell MENAPACE, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

404 P.3d 1179

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF SWEETWATER COUNTY, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
Darrell MENAPACE, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-17-0055.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

November 9, 2017

Representing Appellant: Corinne E. Rutledge and Erin A. Barkley of Lathrop & Rutledge, P.C., Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Ms. Barkley.

Representing Appellee: G. Bryan Ulmer III, Emily R. Rankin, and Michael F. Lutz of The Spence Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, WY. Argument by Mr. Lutz.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.

HILL, Justice.

¶1] Darrell Menapace filed a medical malpractice complaint against Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County (the Hospital) alleging the Hospital was vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of a physician who worked at the hospital as an independent contractor. The Hospital moved for summary judgment on the ground that the physician was not a Hospital employee and the Hospital was therefore immune from liability for his acts or omissions. The district court found that the Hospital waived its immunity by purchasing liability insurance and on that basis denied

[404 P.3d 1181

the Hospital's summary judgment motion. We reverse.

ISSUE

¶2] The Hospital states the issue on appeal as:

Was Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County "legally responsible" for the acts or omissions of alleged ostensible agent Dr. Lin Miao at the time of the treatment at issue, such that it waived its immunity to ostensible agency claims under the insurance exception at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-118(b) ?

FACTS

[¶3] Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County is a government entity operating in Rock Springs, Wyoming. The Hospital carries a liability insurance policy, issued by UMIA Insurance, Inc. (the UMIA Policy), which includes the following coverage for medical professional liability claims against the Hospital:

UMIA agrees to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of any claim or claims * * * arising out of the performance of medical professional services rendered or which should have been rendered * * * by the insured or any person for whose acts or omissions the insured is legally responsible. (emphasis in original to indicate defined policy terms)¹

[¶4] In 2012, the Hospital entered into a contract with EmCare, Inc., which provided that for a period of three years, EmCare would be the exclusive provider of hospitalist physician services for the Hospital. One of the hospitalist physicians provided pursuant to that contract was Dr. Lin Miao. Dr. Miao was not an EmCare employee, but was a locum tenens physician provided by EmCare to cover EmCare shifts at the Hospital.²

[¶5] On June 6, 2013, Darrell Menapace was admitted to the Hospital with complaints of numbness and cramping in his legs and an inability to walk and was seen by Dr. Miao. Dr. Miao did not request a vascular consult and discharged Mr. Menapace on June 8, 2013. On June 11, 2013, Mr. Menapace saw a nurse practitioner, Angela Slinden, who scheduled him for a vascular consult to take place two and a half days later. On June 12, 2013, Mr. Menapace self-referred to the University of Utah where he was diagnosed with acute limb ischemia, sepsis, and acute renal failure, and underwent emergent bilateral above the knee amputations.

[¶6] On May 6, 2015, Mr. Menapace filed a complaint against the Hospital, Dr. Miao, and Angela Slinden.³ Mr. Menapace's claims against the Hospital included, among others, a claim for vicarious liability for Dr. Miao's care and treatment of Mr. Menapace. The Hospital answered the complaint and asserted several affirmative defenses, including: the Hospital is not liable for actions of independent contractors; the Hospital is not liable for actions of ostensible agents; and the Hospital is a governmental entity immune from the claims against it.

[¶7] On June 30, 2016, the Hospital moved for partial summary judgment against Mr. Menapace's vicarious liability claims. In support of the motion, the Hospital asserted that under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA), the Hospital "cannot be held

[404 P.3d 1182

vicariously liable for the acts of a physician who was not its employee." On November 7, 2016, the district court issued an order denying the Hospital's motion. The court concluded that the Hospital's purchase of liability insurance, and in particular its coverage for "any person for whose acts or omissions" the Hospital "is legally responsible," acted as a waiver of its immunity and extended its liability under the WGCA to include liability for the acts or omissions of the Hospital's apparent agents, including Dr. Miao.

¶8] On December 7, 2016, the Hospital filed a timely Notice of Appeal to this Court.⁴

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶9] We review the district court's summary judgment ruling de novo:

We review a grant of summary judgment deciding a question of law de novo. Sky Harbor Air Serv., Inc. v. Cheyenne Reg'l Airport Bd. , 2016 WY 17, ¶ 40, 368 P.3d 264, 272 (Wyo. 2016). In doing so, "We review a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards." Thornock v. PacifiCorp , 2016 WY 93, ¶ 10, 379 P.3d 175, 179 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Rogers v. Wright , 2016 WY 10, ¶ 7, 366 P.3d 1264, 1269 (Wyo. 2016) ). "No deference is accorded to the district court on issues of law, and we may affirm the summary judgment on any legal grounds appearing in the record." Cont'l Western Ins. Co. v. Black , 2015 WY 145, ¶ 13, 361 P.3d 841, 845 (Wyo. 2015). "The summary judgment can be sustained only when no genuine issues of material fact are present and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id . * * *

Halling v. Yovanovich , 2017 WY 28, ¶ 12, 391 P.3d 611, 616 (Wyo. 2017).

[¶10] This appeal requires that we interpret an insurance policy, which is a question of law for this Court. North Fork Land & Cattle, LLLP v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. , 2015 WY 150, ¶ 10, 362 P.3d 341, 345 (Wyo. 2015). We interpret insurance policies in the same manner as any other contract. North Fork Land & Cattle , ¶ 14, 362 P.3d at 346. Our review begins with the document's plain language, and

we interpret the contract as a whole and read each provision in light of the others to find the plain meaning. We avoid interpreting provisions in a way that makes the other provisions inconsistent or meaningless. Finally, "[b]ecause we use an objective approach to interpret contracts, evidence of the parties' subjective intent is not relevant or admissible in interpreting a contract."

Gumpel v. Copperleaf Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. , 2017 WY 46, ¶ 29, 393 P.3d 1279, 1290 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Thornock v. PacifiCorp , 2016 WY 93, ¶ 13, 379 P.3d 175, 180 (Wyo. 2016) ).

DISCUSSION

[¶11] The question on summary judgment, and now on appeal, is whether the Hospital is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of its apparent agent, Dr. Miao, in his treatment of Mr. Menapace.⁵ Although a hospital generally is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of its apparent agents, Sharsmith v. Hill , 764 P.2d 667, 671-72 (Wyo. 1988), we have held that a county hospital, as a governmental entity, is immune under the WGCA from liability for the acts or omissions of an apparent agent. Pfeifle , ¶ 26, 317 P.3d at 580. The WGCA does, however, allow a governmental entity to purchase liability insurance "covering liability which is not authorized by [the WGCA]" and to thereby extend its liability to the extent of that coverage. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-118(b)(i) (LexisNexis 2017). Our task on appeal is to determine whether the district court correctly concluded that the UMIA Policy acted to extend the Hospital's liability to include liability for its apparent agents.

[404 P.3d 1183

¶12] Because we are concerned here with a county hospital, we begin our review of the district court's decision with the WGCA and its operation. We will then turn to the UMIA Policy to determine whether it operated to extend the Hospital's liability under the WGCA.

A. Hospital's Liability under the WGCA

[¶13] In this appeal, we are concerned with the tort liability that the WGCA imposes on governmental entities and with the WGCA provisions authorizing governmental entities to purchase insurance. We begin with the provisions imposing tort liability. The WGCA provides:

A governmental entity and its public employees while acting within the scope of duties are granted immunity from liability for any tort except as provided by W.S. 1-39-105 through 1-39-112.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-104(a) (LexisNexis 2017) (emphasis added).

[¶14] This Court has long recognized that the WGCA is a "close-ended" claims act, meaning "a claim is barred unless it falls within one of the statutory exceptions." Pfeifle , ¶ 20, 317 P.3d at 579 (citing cases). The statutory exceptions identified in section 104(a) specifically define a governmental entity's liability in particular areas of governmental operations, including: operation of motor vehicles, aircraft or watercraft (§ 105); operation or maintenance of any building, recreation area, or public park (§ 106); operation of airports (§ 107); operation of public utilities and services (§ 108); operation of public hospital or outpatient health care (§ 109); negligence of health care providers who are public employees or providing service to a state institution or county jail...