Reidel v. Akron General Health System
Reidel sued Akron for negligence, which he claims resulted in his paralysis. In defense, Akron denies liability, arguing that the attending physician, Chris Kalapodis, was not an agent of the firm. The court confirms there was actual damage to the plaintiff, which was paralysis. The court also affirmed that the condition was avoidable. Further, the late diagnosis is what led to the deplorable state of the patient. Akron is a community health provider and had a close relationship with the daughter of the plaintiff, providing emergency medical services. Reidel relied on the knowledge that the health facility would provide the services he needed.
The case touches certain legal premises such as negligence in which the physician failed to diagnose the condition early enough to be treated. The fault resulted in permanent damage to the patient. The case further looks into the relationship between firms and independent workers. The attending physician was an independent service provider.
The court determined that the firm was liable for compensation and not the practitioner. It established the need for payment, having confirmed the damage. The jury determined the relationship between Akron and Kalapodis was agency by estoppel. Therefore, the firm is liable for losses caused by the independent practitioner. Despite the ignorance of the plaintiff on the relationship, the law provides a right to “assume and expect” the facility to be the service provider regardless of who delivers treatment.
By continuously allowing Kalapodis to provide medication without caveat to patients, the hospital assumingly trusts his practice. This practice enrolls the practitioner into an estoppel agency. The hospital should take liability for estoppel by law. By law, a patient can assume the hospital is the service provider unless it informs the patients of the relationship with the practitioner.
The verdict of the court is agreeable. However, there could be questionable premises in the law, such as ignorance as an excuse for the patients assuming all practitioners are hospital employees. The firm ought to monitor the conduct of its contracted practitioners to reduce and avoid accidents. In case the hospital anticipated legal harm because of the independent practitioners, which is inevitable, it should make communication to clients regarding the relationship.