Michigan Supreme Court Finds Plaintiff Demonstrated Genuine Issue Of Material Fact In Medical Malpractice Case; Reverses COA Judgment
MSC Order Released: July 9, 2025
MSC Docket No. 166702, COA Docket No. 350655
Oakland County Circuit Court
Per Curiam Opinion
Holding: The plaintiff demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding the hospital's liability for medical malpractice under the theory of ostensible agency and did not need to show further reliance under the Grewe test.
Facts: In Markel, the legal proceedings revolve around the concept of ostensible agency and agency by estoppel in a medical malpractice context. The plaintiff presented for treatment at the emergency room of William Beaumont Hospital and was treated by Dr. Lonappan, a physician with whom she had no prior relationship. The central issue is whether the plaintiff could reasonably believe that Dr. Lonappan was an agent of the hospital, which is crucial for establishing the hospital's liability under the theory of ostensible agency.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of William Beaumont Hospital. The Michigan Supreme Court previously remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to apply the appropriate test under Grewe v Mt. Clemens General Hospital, which states that a patient can reasonably believe a doctor is the hospital's agent unless the hospital dispels that belief. The Court of Appeals on remand, however, required the plaintiff to show reliance on a representation from the hospital that Dr. Lonappan was its agent, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate. Markel v William Beaumont Hosp, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 4, 2024 (Docket No. 350655). The Court of Appeals distinguished between ostensible agency and agency by estoppel, but the Michigan Supreme Court noted that Michigan law uses these terms interchangeably.
Key Appellate Ruling:
The Michigan Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred by requiring the plaintiff to show reliance on a representation from the hospital that Dr. Lonappan was its agent in order to prevail under the Grewe test.
The Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the plaintiff needed to show reliance on a representation from the hospital that Dr. Lonappan was its agent to prevail under the Grewe test. In Markel, the Supreme Court clarified that there’s no need to show further reliance besides going to a hospital for treatment. The Supreme Court reasoned that this reliance can be established when a patient presents to the hospital for treatment and is assigned a physician by the hospital. The Supreme Court emphasized that no additional act of reliance is necessary beyond the patient's presentation at the hospital for treatment. The Supreme Court concluded that the actions of the hospital in assigning an attending physician were sufficient to create a question of fact regarding ostensible agency. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the trial court and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
