Prutton v. Baumgart
| Decision Date | 11 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-19-0346,2-19-0346 |
| Citation | 2020 IL App (2d) 190346,444 Ill.Dec. 839,165 N.E.3d 485 |
| Parties | Sherri PRUTTON, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Alexis V., a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph R. BAUMGART, Paula Hobson, Kishwaukee Community Hospital, and Northern Illinois Fertiilty, S.C., Defendants (Kishwaukee Community Hospital, Defendant-Appellee). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Terrence M. Quinn, of Phillips Law Offices, of Chicago, for appellant.
Aiju C. Thevatheril, Catherine Basque Weiler, and Laura K. Anderson, of Swanson Martin & Bell, LLP, of Chicago, for appellee.
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Sherri Prutton, individually and as mother and next friend of Alexis V., a minor, appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Kishwaukee Community Hospital (Kishwaukee). Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in ruling that Dr. Paula Hobson was not acting as Kishwaukee's apparent agent when Hobson oversaw Prutton's labor and performed the delivery of Alexis at Kishwaukee. During the delivery, Alexis had a shoulder dystocia that resulted in a brachial plexus injury, causing nerve damage that affected the use of her right arm. We affirm.
¶ 3 On April 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a five-count complaint against Hobson, Kishwaukee, Northern Illinois Fertility, S.C. (NIF), and Dr. Joseph R. Baumgart. Plaintiff alleged that she was admitted to Kishwaukee on October 20, 2010, and that its agents and employees provided care and treatment to her during the labor and delivery of Alexis. She alleged that Kishwaukee had medical personnel acting as apparent agents of the hospital and that no one informed plaintiff that they were not Kishwaukee employees.
¶ 4 In the count directed solely against Kishwaukee,1 plaintiff alleged, among other things, that Hobson was an apparent agent of Kishwaukee; that Hobson was negligent in her delivery techniques, causing Alexis to sustain significant, permanent injuries to her brachial plexus; and that Kishwaukee was vicariously liable for the injuries.
¶ 5 On January 26, 2015, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss Baumgart.
¶ 6 Plaintiff's discovery deposition was taken on August 5, 2015; we summarize her testimony. Plaintiff was born in July 1971. In addition to Alexis, plaintiff had two other daughters, born in 1995 and 1997 at Kishwaukee, when plaintiff was under the care of Dr. Emile Hirsch. Plaintiff found out that she was pregnant with Alexis in January 2010, but Hirsch had moved out of state by that time. Plaintiff contacted her insurance carrier about her treatment options, and she specifically requested a doctor who delivered at Kishwaukee. She wanted to give birth at Kishwaukee because she had gone there for medical care as a child and for the birth of her other children and was comfortable there. It was also near her home. Before the pregnancy with Alexis, plaintiff had seen television and billboard advertising for Kishwaukee.
¶ 7 Plaintiff was advised that NIF accepted her insurance, so she went there for her prenatal care. NIF was in a building across the street from Kishwaukee. Plaintiff mostly saw Baumgart, but she also saw Hobson two or three times because Baumgart had told her that Hobson would deliver the baby if he was unavailable. Hobson did in fact turn out to be the delivering physician. Plaintiff thought that both doctors worked for Kishwaukee, because she "knew that [they] would be delivering" there. Neither doctor specifically told her that they did not work for Kishwaukee.
¶ 8 Plaintiff went into labor on October 20, 2010. She was admitted to Kishwaukee and taken to the delivery room at about 6 p.m. At about 8:15 p.m., she signed two informed consent forms, namely a patient authorization record and a consent for obstetrical services. Alexis was born on October 21, 2010, at 2:29 a.m.
¶ 9 The patient authorization record contained eight subsections, one of which was -entitled "PHYSICIAN SERVICES ." (Emphasis in original.) This subsection stated:
(Emphasis in original.)
Plaintiff signed her initials after this subsection, and signed the signature line at the bottom of the document. At her deposition, plaintiff testified that she could understand the paragraph "now."
¶ 10 The second consent form stated that it was for "obstetrical delivery" and contained eight bulleted paragraphs on the first of two pages. The sixth paragraph stated, "I understand that the physicians who participate in the procedure (for example: surgeon, assistants, anesthesiologist, obstetrician, pathologist, and the like) are independent practitioners and are not employees or agents of Kishwaukee Community Hospital." On the second page, above the signature line, the form stated:
Plaintiff signed the signature line below this disclaimer. At her deposition, plaintiff testified that she could "basically understand" the sixth paragraph from the consent form and the sentence from the above-quoted paragraph stating that she had read, understood, and agreed to the foregoing items.
¶ 11 Hobson was deposed on November 17, 2015. As relevant here, she testified that she worked for NIF from September 2009 to May 2012. NIF was an independent practice that Baumgart owned and managed. Hobson worked there pursuant to a physician independent-contractor agreement. During the delivery, Hobson wore hospital scrubs that were marked "Kishwaukee Hospital" "[i]n the back where the tag" was, but nowhere else.
¶ 12 In its response to requests to admit, Kishwaukee admitted that Hobson was displayed on the hospital's website in 2009 and 2010 and that the website did not specifically state that she was not a hospital employee. Kishwaukee also admitted the genuineness of five print advertisements relating to Hobson that it distributed, disseminated, or published to the public. A press release dated October 14, 2009, had the title "Kish Hospital Welcomes New Doctors" and listed Hobson, among others. It stated that she had "recently joined the medical staff" and was practicing with Baumgart at NIF. A second advertisement stated that Kishwaukee was "pleased to welcome" Hobson, who had "joined the medical staff" and was practicing with Baumgart of NIF. It listed NIF's contact information. A third advertisement had similar content but also contained a large photograph of Hobson.
¶ 13 On November 8, 2018, Kishwaukee filed a motion for summary judgment. We summarize Kishwaukee's argument as relevant for this appeal. There was no evidence that Hobson committed acts creating the appearance of apparent agency or that Kishwaukee acquiesced to any such acts or representations. In other words, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Kishwaukee acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Hobson was its agent. Plaintiff, through her insurance company, selected NIF as a practice and Baumgart and Hobson as her doctors, when she found out that she was pregnant. NIF's office was not located within Kishwaukee. During plaintiff's prenatal care, Baumgart referred her to the maternal fetal medicine department of Rockford Memorial Hospital, which was also an entity distinct from Kishwaukee. Furthermore, Hobson and Kishwaukee affirmatively communicated to plaintiff that Hobson was not an agent of Kishwaukee, through the informed consent forms.
¶ 14 In plaintiff's response to Kishwaukee's motion for summary judgment, she did not oppose summary judgment as to the allegations of nursing negligence and actual agency. On the subject of Hobson's apparent agency, she argued that Kishwaukee's advertising about Hobson created a genuine question of material fact about whether Kishwaukee "held out" Hobson as an employee. Plaintiff argued that the consent forms were not dispositive of the issue, because she signed the forms about two hours after being admitted to the hospital—while she was in labor— and the forms were ambiguous and confusing. Finally, plaintiff argued that she relied on Kishwaukee's services for labor and delivery care rather than on the services of Hobson or any other particular physician.
¶ 15 Plaintiff attached to her response an affidavit in which she stated, among other things, that she chose Kishwaukee as the place to deliver Alexis and therefore requested a doctor who delivered babies there. She believed that both Baumgart and Hobson were Kishwaukee employees. None of the Kishwaukee advertisements that she had seen before becoming pregnant with Alexis stated that the doctors there were not employed by the hospital. The "general theme" of the advertisements "was that Kishwaukee Community Hospital provided high quality, full service medical care to the community and that the doctors there had great expertise." She chose Kishwaukee based on her prior experiences there and its reputation.
¶ 16 Kishwaukee filed a reply to plaintiff's response, and the parties argued the summary judgment motion at a hearing on February 27, 2019....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delegatto v. Advocate Health and Hospitals
...Cross is included within that broad category. Notably, this same argument was raised by the plaintiff in Prutton v. Baumgart , 2020 IL App (2d) 190346, 444 Ill.Dec. 839, 165 N.E.3d 485. There, our sister court in the Second Judicial District held that the subject consent form that communica......