The Michigan Supreme Court had stated in a prior case: “when a patient presents for treatment at a hospital emergency room and is treated during their hospital stay by a doctor with whom they have no prior relationship, a belief that the doctor is the hospital’s agent is reasonable unless the hospital does something to dispel that belief. Put another way, the “act or neglect” of the hospital is operating an emergency room staffed with doctors with whom the patient, presenting themselves for treatment, has no prior relationship. [Markel II, 510 Mich at 1071-1072, quoting Grewe, 404 Mich at 253.]”
In its Order in the most recent Markel appellate case dated July 9, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court stated: “we hold that plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to Beaumont’s liability for medical malpractice under the theory of ostensible agency. Plaintiff presented for treatment at the hospital emergency room and was treated at the hospital by a doctor with whom she had no prior relationship. See Markel II, 510 Mich at 1071. Beaumont has not set forth facts establishing as a matter of law that it dispelled plaintiff’s reasonable belief that Dr. Lonappan was the hospital’s agent. See id. We disagree with the Court of Appeals majority that the existence of an agreement between plaintiff’s primary care physician and Hospital Consultants, Dr. Lonappan’s employer, without more, establishes that plaintiff did not rely on Beaumont for care. Markel III (opinion of the court), unpub op at 9. As an initial matter, the agreement goes not to reliance, but to whether plaintiff’s belief that Dr. Lonappan was Beaumont’s agent was reasonable, as the agreement pertains to whether plaintiff had a preexisting relationship with Dr. Lonappan. See Markel II, 510 Mich at 1071. But even if the agreement could pertain to reliance, there is no evidence that plaintiff had any knowledge of the agreement at the time that she was admitted. Therefore, the mere existence of the agreement does not, as a matter of law, rebut plaintiff’s reasonable belief that Dr. Lonappan was Beaumont’s agent, or dispel plaintiff’s reliance on that belief when she was treated by Dr. Lonappan. Because the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of Beaumont, we reverse and remand this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this order.”
The Michigan Supreme Court further explained: “The Court of Appeals erred by distinguishing between ostensible agency and agency by estoppel. While the panel accurately recognized that some secondary sources support the conclusion that there is a meaningful distinction between ostensible agency and agency by estoppel … Michigan law also has not distinguished between the terms. Our courts have used “ostensible agency” and “agency by estoppel” interchangeably … the Court of Appeals in the instant case latched onto the phrase “agency by estoppel” to hold that “for plaintiff to prevail under Grewe at the summary-disposition stage, she must show that she relied upon Beaumont’s representation, through its operation of an emergency department, that Dr. Lonappan was its agent” … The panel majority is correct that reliance is relevant under the Grewe test, i.e., the test for ostensible agency or agency by estoppel … The Court of Appeals erred, however, in its analysis of plaintiff’s reliance. Reliance may be found where the patient presents to the hospital and is “ ‘looking to the hospital for treatment.’ ” … when a person enters a hospital through the emergency room and is assigned an attending physician by the hospital, those actions alone are sufficient to create reliance by the patient and to create a question of fact as to ostensible agency unless it is shown that the patient was advised and understood that the physician was not the hospital’s agent … No additional act of reliance on a plaintiff’s part is necessary.”
If you or a loved one suffered a serious injury (or worse) as a result of emergency room malpractice in Michigan or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Michigan medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your emergency room malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in an emergency room medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to be connected with medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
